Babel 49:4 302309 Fdration des Traducteurs (FIT) Revue Babel

Foregrounding as a Criterion for Translation Criticism

Jingmin Li & Shuhua Xu

Foregrounding has its origin with the Prague School theorists. Mukarovsk pointed out that foregrounding is the opposite of automatization, that is, the deautomatization of an act. Automatization schematizes an event; foregrounding means the violation of the scheme (1964: 19). Havrnek remarked that automatization means such a use of the devices of the language as is usual for a certain expressive purpose, that is, such a use that the expression itself does not attract any attention, while foregrounding means the use of the devices of the language in such a way that this use itself attracts attention and is perceived as uncommon, as deprived of automatization. Havrnek illustrated automatization and foregrounding with an example: if we translate the common Russian greeting formula dravstvuyte into Czech by the phrase budte zdrv, it is unsuitable, for a common Russian greeting form has been translated into Czech by an uncommon form, that is, an automatized expression has been foregrounded (1964: 9-10). In China, foregrounding is rendered into Chinese generally as qian jing hua (frontsceneization), and by some scholars as tu chu (protrudingout). Studies on foregrounding have been made mainly within one language, regarding stylistic eects in literature in particular. The American scholar, Zinan Ye, however, believes that this notion can be applied to translation (Ye 2000: 123-130). His belief is rational and, as a matter of fact, it can be applied not only to translation practice, but also to translation criticism. With the theory of foregrounding, translating and its products can be observed and evaluated from a new angle, and foregrounding itself will become an interesting subject for the study of translation criticism. When we apply the notion of foregrounding to translation criticism, we mean a general reference to the deviation from the norm in both the SL and the TL. Therefore, two dierent types of foregrounding are involved.

Foregrounding as a Criterion for Translation Criticism

303

The rst type refers to the foregrounding made by the author of the SL, who intentionally deautomatizes the linguistic devices to create prominence. E.g.
I kep it from her arter I heard on it, said Mr. Peggotty, going on nigh a year. We was living then in a solitary place, but among the beautifullest trees, and with the roses a-covering our Bein to the roof...

As we know, Peggotty is a character in Dickenss David Coppereld, who is kind, simple and honest, but who receives no education. He is illiterate and there are a lot of grammatical mistakes and awkward words in what he says. It was just with these linguistic defects that Dickens portrayed a vivid striking character. David Coppereld has been translated into Chinese by many translators, and here are two versions of the above example:
(i) , , , ,
(Qi nashi an

ting le xiaoxi hou, Piguoti xiansheng shuo, man zhuo ta kuai yinian le. Anmen nar dai de difang tingbei, qianhoubafang de shulinzi shuo bu chu de zui piaoliang, wuding jinshi qiangweihua.) (From then arter I heard on it, said Mr. Peggotty, I kep it from her nigh a year. Our theer living place was solitary, woods around was indescribably beautifullest, theer was many roses covering the roof ...)
, , (Wo tingdao na xiaoxi hou, Piguoti xiansheng shuo, man le ta chabuduo yinian. Women dangshi zhuzai yige pijing de difang. Zhouwei you shifen meili de shu, wuding shang you qiangweihua.) (After I heard it, said Mr. Peggotty, I kept it from her for nearly a year. We were then living in a solitary place among beautiful trees, with roses covering the roof of the house...) Zhang, 1980: 9

(ii) ,

The translator of the rst translation deviates from the norm of Chinese and presents a foregrounded version with many linguistic defects in accordance with those of the original work. As a result, a vivid Peggotty reappears between the lines in Chinese. The translator of the second translation, however, fails to notice the relation between foregrounding and meaning, and misrepresents the authors intention. The uncommon forms are translated into Chinese by common forms, that is, the foregrounded remarks are automatized, and Peggotty becomes quite another person. Spelling mistakes and grammatical faults may occur in articles of newspapers and magazines or even in books; they are generally accidental. But if the author intentionally deviates from the norm to portray a special character,

304

Jingmin Li & Shuhua Xu

just as Dickens did, the foregrounded expressions are closely related to meaning. As a matter of fact, such intentional deviations that lead to foregrounding are frequently employed to achieve special eects. For example, capital letters, italics, bold type and other printing means may create foregrounding to catch the readers eyes. There are some basic sentence patterns in English, but the author may transform the structure, invert the word order or omit some parts to make the sentence prominent. It is common for a text to have both long and short sentences. When a text, however, contains an extraordinary number of long or short sentences, it is foregrounded and presents a special style or mode. Conventional conversational devices are automatized, but to liven up the conversation or to achieve a special eect, verses of famous poets and lines of celebrities may be cited to create foregrounding. Technical terms and expressions have automatized meanings in scientic language, but if they are used in a completely alien environment, they are foregrounded. In this sense, devices of poetic language, slang, the language of science and other linguistic devices with an uncommon meaning or in an uncommon context can all create foregrounding (Havrnek, 1964: 10). By applying the notion of foregrounding to translation criticism, we may observe and evaluate whether the translator has noticed these intentional deviations from the norm, whether he has gained a clear idea of the relation between the foregrounded expressions and meaning, and whether he has taken any measures in the TL to represent the eect of foregrounding in the SL. The second type of foregrounding is associated with the TL. The devices of the SL in the text are not deviated from the norm, but the translator, inuenced by the features of the SL, deviates from the norm of the TL and renders automatized expressions into foregrounded ones. E.g.
Merchants who sell at markets expect to bargain for almost everything they offer. (Zai (i) shichang mai dongxi de shangren qidai zhuo dui tamen suo tigong de jihu suoyou de dongxi taojiahuanjia.) (At markets selling merchants look forward to bargaining for almost all their oered things.) (ii) , , (Shangren zai shichang shang zuo shengyi, buguan mai shenme, jiage jihu doushi keyi shangliang de.) (When merchants sell at markets, no matter what they sell, the price is usually negotiable.)

Foregrounding as a Criterion for Translation Criticism

305

The devices in the original English sentence are common and in agreement with the norm; nothing is foregrounded. Version (i), however, is a word for word reproduction of the English sentence in Chinese, deviating from the norm of the Chinese language. As a result, the foregrounded version is dicult to read and comprehend. Version (ii), on the other hand, frees itself from the trammels of the original sentence, and automatizes the devices to make them in accordance with the Chinese norm in natural language, just as they are normal and natural in the SL. As a matter of fact, large numbers of expressions with features of the SL are supposed to be dealt with properly to conform to the norm of the TL so as to avoid unsuitable foregrounding. In brief, a foregrounded expression or mode in the SL should be translated into a foregrounded equivalent in the TL, while automatizations in the SL should also be automatizatized in the TL. This criterion, which is rational, has a general reference value in translation criticism, and it can be employed to evaluate the acceptability of most translations. Apart from this criterion as a rational basis, some other factors should be taken into account in concrete operations. As far as translation is concerned, deviation from the norm or foregrounding is a relative concept. Every TL system has a exible limit of tolerance, which is just like a circle and the closer a translated version is to the center, the more it is in conformance with the norm of the TL system. In the process of translation, it is, in some cases, unavoidable for the translator to deviate from the norm of the TL, owing to the dierence in culture, language structure and the unbalanced development in science, technology and society. But the translator is inclined to try by every means to make his versions within the limit of tolerance and acceptable to his readers, or at least to a certain group of people for a start. Therefore, in spite of the fact that these unavoidable deviated versions may be at some places away from the center and sound somewhat alien to the reader, they may conform, in various degrees, to the interior laws of the TL system, and may not go absolutely beyond the acceptability of the reader. Besides, these deviated units never stay at a xed place in the circle. They will go either way to the center or out of the limit as time passes by and by the effect of the indenite factors of society and culture. Some will be accepted by more and more people, gradually integrate into the center of the TL system and nally ll in the gap of ways of expression in the TL, thoroughly automatized. Others will be rejected by the people in the end and never accepted by the TL system. As a translation critic, one should have the ability to dene deviation

306

Jingmin Li & Shuhua Xu

and foregrounding and to evaluate translations objectively on the premise of the limit of tolerance and other restrictive factors. Deviation from the norm or foregrounding is also a dynamic concept, manipulated by many factors, such as the development and reform of society and the self-condence and attitude of a nation to its own culture. Zinan Ye, when discussing these factors in his book the Principles and Practice of EnglishChinese Translation, illustrated this phenomenon with an example: in the turbulent period of the 1960s in China during the Cultural Revolution, there was a set of vogue words and expressions, many of which, from todays point of view, seem to have deviated from the norm of the Chinese language. But this kind of deviation characterized the style of the then Chinese society. It represented the stereotype of the language system of the whole society rather than the features of language of a handful of people. And those words and expressions were automatized at that time, forming part of the norm of a particular historical period (Ye 2000: 130). In modern China, which is opening to the outside world, peoples attitude toward translation, with regard to aesthetic standards and ways of expression, has been changing with the drastic development of society, politics, economy, culture, science, etc. Translation methods that were reproached in the past have been gradually accepted. For example, (yi shi er niao) (kill two birds with one stone) is replacing the traditional Chinese idiom (yi jian shuang diao) (shoot two hawks with one arrow). TV hosts are often heard to say (wo you ting guo zhe ge ge) (I have listened to this song), which imitates the structure of the English sentence. Zero translations (Qiu, 2001) are getting popular, e.g. such phrases and words as talk show, party are transliterated into Chinese as (tuo kou xiu), (pai dui), and terms like CEO, WTO are used just as they are in English. It is true that these methods deviate from the norm of the TL system, but they do follow an existing tendency with an epochal character, forming a new norm of translation. Should this epochal character be taken into account in translation criticism? How to reect this character in translation criticism and how to dene this deviation from the norm? All these problems demand further studies. When the notion of foregrounding is taken as a criterion for translation criticism, the eect of the features of translation language deserves special consideration. The features of translation language refer to the special language mode of translating, which has been broadly accepted by and popular with readers. A translation, whether a novel or a newspaper article or a scientic pa-

Foregrounding as a Criterion for Translation Criticism

307

per, will be immediately recognized by readers as a rendered version when they start to read it, and they tend to take a tolerant attitude toward the language of the translation and enjoy its exotic touches. This is what is referred to as the effect of the features of translation language. Among the many factors that lead to the special language mode of translations, two are most important. On the one hand, he language and culture of any nation are unique and have distinct characteristics. The task of translating is not at all to eliminate these characteristics, but to set up a bridge to introduce them (Liu 1998: 600). On the other hand, since faithfulness, equivalence and advocacy of dissimilation have, to a great extent, dominated translation activities, translators, even including the acknowledged masters in literature, are inclined to be inuenced by the SL system. There has been controversy over this phenomenon, but it has formed the features of translation language for the translations to deviate, in some degree, from the natural expressions of the TL and get close to the SL. That the special translation language is not rejected by readers but popular with them is undeniable. Therefore, when we dene the standard of deviation, this factor cannot be neglected. Since translating is recognized as a regulated activity, there do exist general laws to go by in translating practice, and there must be theoretical bases to refer to in evaluating translations. The laws, known or not yet known, involve consistent probe, summarization and improvement. Meanwhile, since translating is also a complicated activity with multi-purposes and multi-functions, we should observe it and evaluate its products from various angles and at dierent levels. The introduction of the notion of foregrounding into translation makes it possible for critics to observe this activity from a new angle, and the notion of foregrounding will serve as a rational basis for translation criticism. Of course the relation between foregroudning and translation criticism may be rather complex and requires further deepgoing studies. In this sense, foregrounding will become an interesting subject for the study of translation criticism. References
Havrnek, B. 1964.The functional dierentiation of the standard language. In Garvin, P. L. (Ed.). A Prague School reader on esthetics, literary structure, and style. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 9-10. (163 pp.) Hu, Zhuanglin et al. 1993. Linguistics: a Course Book. Beijing: Beijing University Press, pp. 303-307. (xvi + 422 pp.) Liu, Miqing. 1998. Wenti Yu Fanyi (Style and Translation). Beijing: China National Translation and Publishing Corporation, p. 600. (x + 609 pp.)

308

Jingmin Li & Shuhua Xu

Mukarovsk, J. 1964. Standard language and poetic language. In Garvin, P. L. (Ed.). A Prague School reader on esthetics, literary structure, and style. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, p. 19. (163 pp.) Qiu, Maoru. 2001. Keyixing Ji Ling Fanyi (Translatability and Zero Translation). Chinese Translators Journal (1), pp. 24-27. Tan, Zaixi. 2000. Fanyixue (The Science of Translation). Hubei: Hubei Education Press, pp. 36-39. (xiii + 357 pp.) Ye, Feisheng, & Xu, Tongqiang. 1991. Yuyanxue Gangyao (Essentials of Linguistics). Beijing: Beijing University Press, p. 268. (269 pp.) Ye, Zinan. 2000. Ying Han Fanyi Lilun Yu Shijian (The Principles and Practice of EnglishChinese Translation). Taipei: Bookman Books, Ltd., pp. 123-130. (xvi + 390 pp.) Zhang, Peiji et al. 1980. Ying Han Fanyi Jiaocheng (English-Chinese Translation: a Course Book). Shanghai: Foreign Languages Education Press, p. 9. (iv + 330 pp.) Zheng, Hailing. 2001 Yiyu De Yihua Yu Youhua (On Dissimilation and Optimization of Target Language). Chinese Translators Journal (3), pp. 3-7.

About the authors

Both JINGMIN LI and SHUHUA XU are professors of English at Tianjin University of Technology, China. Their academic areas involve TESL, linguistics and translation studies, and they have jointly had some books and papers published. When the idea for a research project on translation criticism emerged as Mr. Li came back from the Graduate School of Translation and Interpretation, Monterey Institute of International Studies, USA, where he was a visiting scholar, they began to work together because they have both had the experience as translators and interpreters, and they have common interest in the eld. Their research project is sponsored by Tianjin Research Fund Managing Oce for the Studies on Philosophy and Social Sciences. Address: Shui Shang Guo Ji Cun 12-4-602, Hong Qi Nan Lu Road, Nankai District, Tianjin 300381, PR China. Email: jingminli@eyou.com or: jingminli2@yahoo.com

Abstract
Studies on foregrounding have been made mainly within one language, regarding stylistic eects in literature in particular. This paper, however, presents that the theory of foregrounding can be applied to translation criticism as well. When we apply the notion of foregrounding to translation criticism, we mean a general reference to the deviation from the norm in both the SL and the TL. Therefore, two types of foregrounding are involved, one concerning the foregrounding created by the author of the SL, and the other involving that made by the translator in the TL. Based on the theory of foregrounding, the paper analyzes the phenomena of deviation from the norm, with regard to translation, in both the SL and the TL, and dierent translation techniques and the denition of deviation are discussed synchronically with the analysis.

Foregrounding as a Criterion for Translation Criticism

309

The paper concludes that the introduction of the notion of foregrounding into translation makes it possible for critics to observe translating and its productions from a new angle with a rational theoretic basis. The relation between foregrounding and translation criticism may be rather complex and requires further deepgoing studies. In this sense, foregrounding will become an interesting subject for the study of translation criticism.

Rsum
Les tudes sur la mise au premier plan ont t eectues surtout lintrieur dune langue propos des eets stylistiques, notamment en literature. Nanmoins, selon cet article la thorie de la mise au premier plan peut aussi sappliquer la critique de la traduction. Lorsque nous faisons appel la notion de la mise au premier plan la critique de la traduction, nous supposons une rfrence gnrale la dviation de la norme tant dans la langue source que dans la langue cible. Ds lors, deux types de mise au premier plan sont compris, lun relatif celle cre par lauteur de la langue source et lautre impliquant celle ralise par le traducteur dans la langue cible. En se basant sur la thorie de la mise au premier plan, larticle analyse le phnomne de la dviation de la norme en gard la traduction tant dans la langue source que dans la langue cible; les direntes techniques de traduction ainsi que la dnition de la dviation sont discutes dans une perspective synchronique par rapport lanalyse. Larticle conclut que lintroduction de la notion de mise au premier plan dans la traduction permet aux critiques dobserver la traduction et ses produits sous un nouvel angle avec une base thorique rationnelle. La relation entre la mise au premier plan et la critique de la traduction peut tre assez complexe et requiert dautres tudes approfondies. Dans ce sens, la mise au premier plan deviendra intressante pour ltude de la critique de la traduction.

SENDEBAR ISSN 1130-5509 Sendebar est une revue internationale spcialise en traduction, terminologie et linguistique contrastive publie par lUniversit de Granade. Secrtariat: Antonio Pamies Distribution: Servicio de publicationes Campus de Cartuja Universidad de Granada 18071 GRANADA (Espaa) Tl.: (958) 243930