[RIKKYO PANEL] THE ROLE OF TRANSLATORS AT JAPANESE UNIVERSITIES

FROM A LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE

Mikako NAGANUMA Associate Professor, Rikkyo Graduate School of Intercultural Communication mikako@katch.ne.jp

Abstract: This paper explores the role of translators from a systemic functional linguistic

perspective, focusing on practitioner-researchers who teach translation in the context of Japanese

universities. Apart from a long tradition of the grammar translation method in Japan’s foreign

language education, a growing number of universities currently provide translation education which

is not necessarily aimed to train professionals. One of the common features shared by those

translation classes seems to guide students to differentiate honyaku (translation) from so-called

eibunwayaku or bunpouyakudoku (grammar translation). Because of this burgeoning trend being

observed in Japanese universities, it is necessary to shed light from broader perspectives on issues

and problems facing translation education, including its academization. With a view to seeking for

future directions of translation education in Japan, I’d like to propose one of potential roles of

translators to bridge the gap between theory and practice of translation in a Japanese university

setting.

Key Words: systemic functional linguistics (SFL); Japanese university setting;

practitioner-researchers; theory and practice; nominalization.

1. INTRODUCTION

The role of translators encompasses a wide rage of topics from diverse perspectives. I will limit my

discussion here to a current Japanese university setting where quite a few translators are involved in

teaching translation but unfortunately they are seldom blessed with opportunities to share

information with each other. This paper aims to suggest how translators play their potential role as a

practitioner-researcher in a pedagogical setting. Teaching translation has yet to be based on a clear

academic paradigm at the university level in Japan. As this issue possibly entails different

perspectives, I will mainly focus on a linguistic one, to be more specific, systemic functional

linguistics (SFL) with which we can access a useful tool to analyze various types of source texts

(ST) and target texts (TT) for educational purposes.

SFL is a linguistic theory which can be applied to analyze texts within contexts and to “help train

translators and interpreters” (Halliday, 1994, p. xxix) for their practical purposes. It is essential to

consider how to empower both translation teachers and students in the environment of a university

setting in Japan. The SFL text analysis provides a specialized language or metalanguage, which

“allows us to explore texts by describing how different elements function to realize experiential,

interpersonal and textual meanings” (Butt et al., 2000, p. 6).

2. TRANSLATION EDUCATION: THEORY AND PRACTICE

There are two types of translation education: vocational and academic education. As Baker (1992)

explains, the former provides training in practical skills but does not include a theoretical component,

whereas the latter includes a strong theoretical component. She claims that “the value of this

theoretical component is that it encourages students to reflect on what they do, how they do it, and

why they do it in one way rather than another” and “exploring the advantages and disadvantages of

various ways of doing things is itself impossible to perform unless one has a thorough and intimate

knowledge of the objects and tools of one’s work” (Baker, 1992, pp. 1-2).

When it comes to translation education in a Japanese university setting, how to combine theory and

practice and to balance the two has not fully discussed to date. The teacher needs to analyze and

assess students’ outputs to effectively demonstrate differences between translation and grammar

translation. The internal legacy of students who are extremely familiar with the grammar translation

method acquired from their long experience in foreign language learning dies hard, often resulting in

confusion and misunderstanding of the very meaning of translation on the side of students. This

phenomenon is largely due to studying foreign languages, in particular English, for entrance

examinations in Japan, as was experienced in western countries by applicants who learned Greek

and Latin:

Translation, as a result, came to be associated with the process of testing the knowledge of

grammar and vocabulary in the foreign language and the “equivalents” found in dictionaries

and vocabulary lists were viewed as constituting the authoritative correct answers (Anderman,

2007, p. 52).

Searching web sites open to the public leads us to the fact that there are around 180 Japanese

universities currently offering various types of translation classes, most of which are obviously

different from foreign language education based on the grammar translation method. As one of those

who have been involved in teaching translation as a practitioner-researcher at both graduate and

undergraduate levels in Japan, I repeated trials and errors over the last several years partly because

of a shortage of role models combining theory and practice of translation reasonably suited for a

Japanese university setting.

The sharp contrast between theory and practice has been widely witnessed in various times and

fields. Therefore, this challenge is not unique to translation education in Japan. In fact, the book of

Renaissance allegorical images (Cesare Ripa’s Iconologia) published in Rome in the early 17th

century depicted theory and practice as shown in Figure 1 (Johnson, 1994). In two pieces of

allegorical picture, theory is presented as an image of a young noble woman looking upwards with a

pair of compasses over her head, while practice is an image of an aged woman looking down,

dressed in a servile manner. When taking a closer look at the latter, however, the decrepit woman

has a pair of compasses and a rule in her hands to support her body. The compasses and the rule

denote reason and the measure of things respectively. The allegorical image of practice not only

implies its rigorousness, but also reminds us of the complementary and dynamic relationship

between theory and practice (as symbolized by the compasses and the rule).

Figure 1: Allegorical Images of Theory and Practice, from Iconologia or Moral Emblem

(Cesare Ripa, 1976 in Johnson, 1994, p. 64, p. 66)

3. TRANSLATION AND LINGUISTICS

As interlingual translation renders a text from one language to another, dealing with at least two

different languages, it is natural to speculate that translation must have been closely related to the

study of language or linguistics. The actual relationship between translation and linguistics, however,

has been somehow complex. For example, Bell expresses his feeling of unease and puzzlement

about translation and linguistics by saying (1991, p. xv):

The translation theorists, almost without exception, have made little systematic use of

techniques and insights of contemporary linguistics (linguistics of the last twenty years or so)

and the linguists, for their part, have been at best neutral and at worst actually hostile to the

notion of a theory of translation.

Although linguistics cannot solve all the problems facing translators, the interaction between

translation and linguistics shall not be denied. Anderman points out that the relationship could be

two different forms. She explains that “in the case of Nida and Catford it expresses itself in an

attempt to formulate a linguistic theory of translation” and “it may also take the less ambitious form

of just an ongoing interaction between the two, each drawing on the findings of the other whenever

this is mutually beneficial” (2007, p. 54). Reviewing the history of translation studies makes us

realize that it was linguistic approaches that liberated translators from long-lasting dichotomous

debates around literal (word-for-word) and free (sense-for-sense) translation. We are entitled to

access linguistic theories for the purpose of improving our own professional translating and teaching

practices in an effective way. Then, how can we utilize some useful linguistic theories as a tool to

empower our product, process, and pedagogy of translation?

4. CASE STUDY: NOMINALIZATION AS A GRAMMATICAL METAPHOR

It is educationally significant in the translation classroom to account for translational shifts, in other

words, how to make a departure from formal correspondence between ST and TT under certain

circumstances. Catford defines shifts as “departures from formal correspondence in the process of

going from the SL (source language) to the TL (target language)” (1965, p. 73). This section of the

paper showcases a brief study of applying some concepts of SFL metalanguages to one of the

challenging issues in translational shifts between English and Japanese: nominalization as a

grammatical metaphor. This case study seeks to demonstrate how to raise the awareness of students

regarding differences between translation and grammar translation, paying attention to translational

shifts related to nominalization due to a contextual pressure.

The concept of grammatical metaphor was introduced by Halliday (1985/1994), as being comprised

of two types: ideational and interpersonal grammatical metaphors. Nominalization belongs to the

former type and Halliday explains (1994, p. 352):

Nominalizing is the single most powerful resource for creating grammatical metaphor. By this

device, process (congruently worded as verbs) and properties (congruently worded as

adjectives) are reworded metaphorically as nouns; instead of functioning in the clause, as

Process or Attribute, they function as Thing in the nominal group.

In the SFL model, language has three metatfunctions—ideational, interpersonal, and textual—which

are three simultaneous strands of meaning. In order to become aware of differences between

translation and grammar translation, it is essential to take into consideration those three

metafunctions, all of which are deeply related to equivalence and shifts in translation.

It has long been instructed in some popular translation textbooks published in Japan that

nominalization in English should be unpacked and then translated to Japanese so as to make

translated Japanese expressions sound more “natural”. Table 1 shows typical examples found in one

of those translation textbooks. This kind of examples is commonly used with regard to how to avoid

peculiarities of language use in translation or translationese. It is important to get away from the

grammar translation method by unpacking nominalized English expressions even though they are

grammatically quite correct. For example, both ST1 and ST2 in Table 1 may be rendered without

unpacking into Japanese, something like “永年にわたる外国文化の研究” and “外国文化に対す

る無知”. What is missing here, however, is an explanation of what has motivated the translator’s

choices which are based on not only ideational but also interpersonal and textual metafunctions

realized in lexicogrammar.

Table 1: How to Translate English Nominalization into Japanese (Based on Anzai, 1996, p. 13)

ST: nominalization in English TT: unpacked in Japanese How to unpack

1. Years of study of foreign cultures

has convinced me that what is really

important is to understand one’s own.

1. 永年外国の文化を研究して

みて確信するにいたったのだ

が、大事なのは実は自国の文

化を理解することなのだ。

years of study of foreign

cultures → after I have

studied foreign cultures for

many years

2. Ignorance of foreign customs can

result in unexpected

misunderstandings.

2. 外国の習慣を知らないと、

思いがけない誤解の生ずるこ

とがある。

ignorance → If we don’t

know

In the above examples, the intuitive “naturalness” seems to be the only reason why nominalization in

English should be unpacked in Japanese. It has been traditionally explained by leading translation

practitioners and linguists in Japan that English is a noun-oriented language and Japanese a

verb-oriented language so that rendering English nouns into Japanese verbs is one of typical

strategies to produce “natural” translation (e.g., Anzai, 1995; Egawa, 1964/1991; Hirako, 1999;

Ikegami, 1981; Ohno, 1978; Toyama, 1987; Yanabu, 2004, etc.). This idea highlights linguistic

preferences between English and Japanese, but lacks in further reasoning to analyze why another

shift is also observed in translation of the opposite direction, from Japanese to English, in a certain

context of situation or register. The following example 3 shows that the nominalization of ST in

Japanese is unpacked to form congruent expressions in the English TT.

Example 3: Asahi Shinbun Editorial (Nov. 10th, 2007) & IHI/Asahi Editorial (Nov. 13th, 2007)

ST: Nominalization in Japanese

それにしても波乱続きの国会である。

安倍首相のいきなりの辞任、福田首相の誕生、「大連立」騒ぎ、小沢民主党代表の辞

意表明、そして撤回。合間には自民党総裁選もあった。

[Literal translation]

It really is the Diet of a series of tremors.

Prime Minister Abe’s abrupt resignation, Prime Minister Fukuda’s inauguration, a stir of “a

grand coalition”, Minshuto chief Ozawa’s announcement of resignation and later retract. There

was also an LDP election for its president.

TT: Unpacked in English

The current Diet session has been jolted by a series of political tremors.

At the outset of the session, then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe abruptly announced his

resignation. Yasuo Fukuda, picked by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party as new party

president to succeed Abe, was elected prime minister.

Then, the proposal of a grand coalition between the LDP and the main opposition party,

Minshuto (Democratic Party of Japan), caused a political stir. After the proposal fell through,

Minshuto chief Ichiro Ozawa said he would step down, but then flip-flopped on his decision.

In order to explain this type of shifts concerning nominalization, we have to look at register variables

in ST and TT (Table 2). The field of this newspaper editorial article deals with Japanese political

situations which are assumed to be very familiar to Japanese ST readers because around that time

Japan’s mass media covered these news topics almost every day, but of course this context was not

the same outside Japan. Considering the tenor of TT as a variable of register, nominalized

expressions are too condensed for general readers outside Japan to understand their propositional

meanings given their unfamiliarity with the topics. It can be said that a congruent (not metaphorical)

form must have been chosen in English for an interpersonal reason, resulting in shifts of ideational

and textual metafunctions for worldwide readers.

Table 2: Register Variables in Example 3

ST3: Asahi Shinbun in Japanese TT3: IHT/Asahi in English

Field Japanese political situations Japanese political situations

Tenor Japanese readers Worldwide readers

Mode Written to be read Written to be read

5. THE ROLE OF PRACTITIONER-RESEARCHERS IN PRODUCT, PROCESS, AND PEDAGOGY

Translators constantly make motivated decisions in their translating practice. Through this

decision-making practice or process, translated texts are created as a product. Theory can investigate

the end product as a result of the decision-making process. Bell states (1991, p. 13) “a theory of

translation, to be comprehensive and useful, must attempt to describe and explain both the process

and the product”. Hatim and Mason (1990, pp. 3-4) suggest that the translation process contains “the

negotiation of meaning between producers and receivers of texts” and that translated texts are “the

result of motivated choice: producers of texts have their own communicative aims and select lexical

items and grammatical arrangement to serve those aims”. It is a translating process that creates a

product which is to be analyzed in theory. The theory could be said to be a metapractice of

translation (translation of translation). The fruits resulting from theoretical studies can be utilized in

teaching translation for pedagogical purposes. Therefore, the role of translators as a

practitioner-researcher in an educational setting is not only to teach practice based on their own

experiences, but also to apply theoretical analyses at micro and macro levels to education as a means

of retracing the translator’s pathways of decision-making process. The practitioner-researcher in a

Japanese university setting is expected to play a role to bridge the gap between theory and practice,

thus mediating product, process, and pedagogy of translation as illustrated in Figure 2.

PRACTICE

PRODUCTMETAEDUCATION

TRANSLATORas PRACTITIONER-

RESEARCHEREDUCATION THEORY

PEDAGOGY PROCESSMETATHEORY METAPRACTICE

Figure 2: Practitioner-researcher’s Role in Product, Process, and Pedagogy of Translation

References [1] Anderman, G. (2007). “Linguistics and translation” In P. Kuhiwczak & K. Littau (Eds.), A companion to

translation studies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

[2] Anzai, T. (1995). Eibun honyakujyutsu. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo.

[3] Anzai, T. (1996). Honyaku eibunpou training manual. Tokyo: Babel Press.

[4] Baker, M. (1992). In other words: A coursebook on translation. London and New York: Routledge.

[5] Bell, R. (1991). Translation and translating: Theory and practice. London and New York: Longman.

[6] Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. (2000). Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide, 2nd

edition. Sydney: NCELTR Macquarie University.

[7] Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[8] Egawa, T. (1964/1991). Eibunpou kaisetsu. Tokyo: Kanekoshobou.

[9] Halliday, M. A. K. (1985/1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.

[10] Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and translator. London: Longman.

[11] Hirako, Y. (1999). Honyaku no genri. Tokyo: Taishukan.

[12] Ikegami, Y. (1981). “Suru” to “naru” no gengogaku. Tokyo: Taishukan.

[13] Johnson, B. (1994). The wake of deconstruction. Hoboke: Blackwell.

[14] Ohno, S. (1978). Nihongo no bunpou wo kangaeru. Tokyo: Iwanami.

[15] Toyama, S. (1987). Nihongo no ronri. Tokyo: Chuokoron-shinsha.

[16] Yanabu, A. (2004). Kindai nihongo no shisou. Tokyo: Hosei University Press.