CC BY
20Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 6 (2012 5) 868-873
УДК 81'33
Correlation between the Original and Translation of Advertising Slogans: Translational Autonomy and Equivalence
Yaroslav V. Sokolovsky*
Siberian Federal University 79 Svobodny, Krasnoyarsk, 660041 Russia 1
Received 13.12.2011, received in revised form 3.03.2012, accepted 15.04.2012
This paper sheds some light upon the new category ofautonomy in translation theory. The author makes an attempt to apply this category to a famous theoretical descriptive model by Vilen N. Komissarov.
Keywords: translation, original, autonomy, additions in translation, advertising slogans, equivalence.
Preliminary Notes
Currently translation studies pay insufficient attention to the problem of studying of the relationship of the original and the translation of advertising texts, particularly with regard to oriental translation, where scholars feel an acute shortage of such works. In addition to that, quite few works try to apply a new translation category to denote discrepancies in translation - the category of autonomy. This article outlines main results of the research, which was accomplished by me and my assistant Anastassia S. Opeykina, who is a graduate of Siberian Federal University now. Here we made an attempt to describe the relationship between the original and its translation from the standpoint of the theory of equivalence and the translation category of autonomy as sections of the linguistic theory of translation. The original text was in English and the translation that we analyzed was in Chinese.
Before we proceed to the practical part of the work, we need to define some theoretical guidelines. First of all, identity is an epistemic goal of translation (Sokolovsky, 2011). Translation is supposed to search for identity between different languages and cultures (Sokolovsky, 2010). The lack of identity between the original and a translation, obviously, can have two cases: 1) certain elements of the original are absent in a translation 2) the translation has some additions, which have no correspondence in the original. The latter case is the main focus of attention in our work.
Lev L. Nelyubin in his work describes the term "additions" which refers to "the expansion of the term of the original language in translation by adding explanatory words" (Nelyubin, 2003), he further says that the additions are "necessary, when some semantic content in the text of the original is expressed by a certain type of
* Corresponding author E-mail address: [email protected]
1 © Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved
language means which is impossible to resort to in the language of translation". A similar opinion may be found in the classical work of Eugene A. Nida "Toward a Science of Translating". Eugene A. Nida states that there are certain additions to the translation, which can "legitimately" be incorporated into a translation (Nida, 2004: 227), the most common and important among them are: (a) filling out elliptical expressions; (b) obligatory specification; (c) additions required because of grammatical restructuring; (d) amplification from implicit to explicit status; (e) answers to rhetorical questions; (f) classifiers; (g) connectives; (h) categories of the receptor language which do not exist in the source language; and (i) doublets..
Analyzing the similar standpoints of Eugene A. Nida and Lev L. Nelyubin (they are similar since they both underline the idea of sensibility and legitimacy of additions into a translation), we need to point out that our interest in this paper also touches upon the so-called "non-legitimate" additions to the translation, i.e. we intend to examine all the additions (all amendments of the content in a translation, which have no correspondence with the original). Moreover, in this article we only want to define and "detect" these additions (absence of the correspondence with the original) and the issue of "legitimacy" is actually beyond the scope of our research now.
Here we make an attempt to introduce a new category into translation studies - the category of translational autonomy. This term was used by Alexander M. Kaplunenko (Kaplunenko, 2007). We admit that there is still much work to be done to clearly differentiate the notions of "additions" and "autonomy" in translation. We have chosen the category of autonomy since this term is a fully-fledged notion in modern epistemology and is defined as "its own law, e.g. the autonomy of organic life in relation to the inorganic, thinking in relation to being, the ethics of autonomy, the ethical self-determination on the basis of its own
mind and its strength in accordance with its own nature " (Encyclopedic Dictionary of Philosophy 2007: 10). We suggest that translational autonomy can be defined as "structural elements of the translation that are missing in the original text at the corresponding language level" (Sokolovsky 2011: 83). Apparently, the language grounds (benchmark) for this "level" can be diverse (it is a separate issue in the field of translation theory), however in our paper the notion of "language level" is equal to one of the five levels described in the theory of level equivalence by Vilen N. Komissarov (Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies 2001: 545-546): 1) the level of linguistic signs (words), 2) the level of the utterance, 3) the level of the structure of a message, 4) the level of description of the situation, and 5) the level of the purpose of communication.
In fact, the model proposed by Vilen N. Komissarov is just a way of describing the possible relationship between the original and its translation, the model shows us to what extent and how much of the content of the original text it is free or not free to be left out. Thus, this model makes it clear that under no circumstances we can sacrifice the purpose of communication. There cannot be any equivalent correspondences at other levels, if there is no equivalence at the level of the purpose of communication. However, this does not mean that equivalence at the level of the purpose of communication is better than equivalence, say, at the level of language of signs, since the latter also necessarily implies the preservation of the purpose of communication.
Levels of Autonomy vs. Levels of Equivalence
In the course of our research we tried to analyze equivalence / lack of equivalence at the corresponding levels between the original text of 78 advertising slogans in English and its translations in Chinese. These advertising
slogans belong to globally famous trademarks and are copied from official websites of the companies. It is worth of note that we do not give a detailed description of the process of "how"
each example was analyzed, since we believe the whole description will not fit into one article. The results of our analysis are written in the summary table, which is published below.
№ Name of the company English (the original text) Chinese translation Levels of autonomy Levels of equivalence
1 Coca-Cola Always Coca-Cola 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
2 Burger King Have it your way 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0
3 MTV I want my MTV 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0
4 Camel I'd walk a mile for a Camel m, s^r^s 5 1,2, 3,4
5 Energizer It keeps going and going and going iftlf 2,3, 4, 5 1
6 Toyota Drive Your Dreams 3, 4, 5 1, 2
7 Carlsberg Probably the best lager in the world WW 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
8 Esso Put a tiger in your tank 4, 5 1, 2, 3
9 Renault Drive the Change 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0
10 Bounty A Taste of Paradise 2, 3, 4, 5 1
11 KFC Finger lickin' good 2, 3, 4, 5 1
12 Pepsodent You'll wonder where the yellow went when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent nrnMmimrnrn AiT^? 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
13 Guinness My goodness, my Guinness », Kft Guinness ! 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
14 Heineken Only Heineken can do this mm 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
15 Heinz Beanz Meanz Heinz 4, 5 1, 2, 3
16 Lay's Betcha can't eat just one f^Tfttf* 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0
17 Olympus Focus on life 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
18 Forbes Capitalist tool 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
19 Dove My moment, My Dove. s® 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0
20 Skoda Skoda. Simply Clever TSËliJl, i±M WCT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0
21 Cadbury A Glass And A Half Full Of Joy 4, 5 1, 2, 3
22 De Beers A diamond is forever 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
23 Mars A Mars a day helps you work, rest and play Mars, Éo m 5 1, 2, 3,4
24 Microsoft Your potential. Our passion 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
25 Stella Artois Reassuringly expensive 4, 5 1, 2, 3
26 Ford Ford. Designed for living. Engineered to last. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0
27 Alka-Seltzer Don't leave home without it 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
28 Budweiser The King of beers. wrn-z^ 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
29 Winston cigarettes Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should 4 ,5 1, 2, 3
30 Dannon/Activia Actively good. 2, 3, 4, 5 1
31 Volvo Volvo. For life 3, 4, 5 1, 2
32 Nissan Shift expectations 3, 4, 5 1, 2
33 eBay The World's Online Marketplace m 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
34 7 up The Uncola im* 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
35 Pepsi The choice of a new generation 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
36 Honda For the Road Ahead 2, 3, 4, 5 1
37 Audi A8 In the Company of Masters »T 5 1, 2, 3, 4
38 Duracell Lasts longer, much longer № 2, 3, 4, 5 1
39 Apple Think Different 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
40 Microsoft World in hand , Soul in Cyber MM 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
41 BMW The Ultimate Driving Machine wrnm^ 2, 3, 4, 5 1
42 Kodak You push the button, we do the rest 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0
43 Twix Two for me, none for you m^-mwm, tr ^Twix^A 4, 5 1, 2, 3
44 Swatch Time is what you make of it 2, 3, 4, 5 1
45 Volkswagen For the love of the car 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0
46 Avis We try harder SffffiS^ 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
47 Air France New. Fast. Efficient. Hfi\ H'fc u 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
48 Crest Look Ma, no cavities! m, mm, m 5 1, 2, 3,4
49 M&Ms The milk chocolate melts in your mouth, not in your hand 5 1, 2, 3,4
50 Pringles Once you pop, the fun don't stop BSMB 2, 3, 4, 5 1
51 Chevrolet Eye it. Try it. Buy it. Bii. ff^ 5 1, 2, 3,4
52 Colgate Good teeth, Good health ^mn, Mwwrn 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
53 Marlboro Come to where the flavour is. Marlboro Country M&RmtM— 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
54 Kinder Surprise Play with the Adventures of your Surprises mm 2, 3, 4, 5 1
55 Lexus The relentless pursuit of perfection 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
56 Nike Just do it 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
57 Adidas Impossible is nothing 5 1,2, 3,4
58 McDonalds I'm lovin' it 5 1,2, 3,4
59 Maybelline Maybe She's Born With It. Maybe It's Maybelline 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0
60 Maxwell House Make every day good to the last drop Ä 4, 5 1, 2, 3
61 Philips Let's make things better 4, 5 1, 2, 3
62 Lipton Direct from tea garden to the tea pot 5 1, 2, 3,4
63 L'Oreal Because you're worth it 4, 5 1, 2, 3
64 Tide Tide is in, Dirt is out 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
65 Nokia Connecting people 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0
66 American Express Do more 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
67 Nescafe The taste is great 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
68 Snickers Hungry? Grab a Snickers 4, 5 1, 2, 3
69 Motorola Intelligence everywhere 4, 5 1, 2, 3
70 Samsung Feel the new space 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
71 LG LG. Life's Good 4, 5 1, 2, 3
72 Skittles Taste the rainbow 0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
73 Red Bull It Gives You Wiiings 4, 5 1, 2, 3
74 Kit Kat Have a break... have a Kit Kat mr-T, tèife 5 1, 2, 3,4
75 Sprite Obey your thirst 0 1, 2, 3,4
76 Sony Like.no.other 4, 5 1, 2, 3
77 Gillette Gillette The Best a Man Can Get 4, 5 1, 2, 3
78 Dannon/Actimel A little every day goes a long, long way. 2, 3, 4, 5 1
Summary of the results shows that there are 51 cases of translation autonomy (65%) and 27 cases (35%) of translation equivalence at the level of language signs (words); there are 40 cases of translation autonomy (51%) and 38 cases (49%) of translation equivalence at the level of the structure of a message; there are 25 cases (32%) of translation autonomy and 53 cases (68%) of translation equivalence at the level ofthe utterance; there are 22 cases (28%) of translation autonomy and 56 (72%) cases of translation equivalence at
the level of description of the situation; there are 11 cases (14%) of translation autonomy and 67 cases (86%) cases of translation equivalence at the level of the purpose of communication.
Conclusion
One of the main objectives of the paper is to show that new categories of translation theory may form a new theoretical model within an existing theory: the category of autonomy within the theory of levels of equivalence by Vilen N.
Komissarov. We believe that the material used as illustrations is remarkable in at least two respects: first is that commercial text is considered to be one of important attractors of attention on the part of linguistic scholars all over the globe, the second is that the amount of scientific works in
Russia devoted to the problems of translation from \ to oriental languages (e.g. Chinese) is still insufficient. Apart from that, it is evident that the issue of correlation between the notions of "additions in translation" and "translation autonomy" needs further investigation.
References
A. M. Kaplunenko, Concept - Notion - Term: The evolution of semiotic entity in the context of discursive practices // Asia-Pacific region: the dialogue of languages and cultures: a collection of scientific papers of international conference (20 - 31 January 2007, Irkutsk), 115-120. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Philosophy, (Moscow: INFRA-M, 1997).
E. A. Nida, Toward a Science of Translating, (Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004).
L. L. Nelyubin, Explanatory Dictionary of Translation, (Moscow: Flinta: Science, 2003). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, (London and New-York: Routledge, 2001). Ya. V. Sokolovsky & O. V. Sokolovskaya, Factors Influencing Translation within the Framework of Language Contacts: on the Interaction between the Russian and Chinese Languages // Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 10 (2011 4), 1454-1461.
Ya. V. Sokolovsky & V. A. Razumovskaya, Original and Translation: the Conception of Cognitive Isomorphism (in Literary Text), (Saarbrucken, Germany: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH&Co.KG, 2011).
Ya. V. Sokolovsky, On the Linguistic Definition of Translation // Journal of Siberian Federal University (Humanities & Social Sciences, 2 (2010 3), 285-292.
Соотношение оригинала и перевода текстов рекламных слоганов: переводческая автономия и эквивалентность
Я.В. Соколовский
Сибирский федеральный университет Россия 660041, Красноярск, пр. Свободный, 79
В настоящей статье предпринимается попытка применить переводческую категорию автономии к хорошо известной теоретической дескриптивной модели уровневой эквивалентности В. Н. Комиссарова.
Ключевые слова: перевод, оригинал, автономия, добавления в переводе, рекламные слоганы, эквивалентность.
