Rivista internazionale di tecnica della traduzione n.13 - 2011

Translating into Italian Sign Language (LIS) involves the transposition of a written text to sign language (SL) by means of recording the sign language. Sign language is a non-alphabetic language because it lacks a shared written form, although efforts in creating one are in progress. The recording enables us to control the production in SL, any errors can be detected, corrected and re-filmed. Some aspects of translation are discussed, such as planning and sign language production control. This paper is a study of the theoretical approach of translation applied to LIS. A tourist guide of Venice is translated from Italian to LIS, and this experience is a starting point to examine different problems: the transposition of the written text into a recorded video text from a technical point of view; the analysis of specific structures of written language that require translating into a language whose structures are closer to spoken language; the choice of the most appropriate lexical elements (e.g. choice of regional words for places, art terms). Section 4 examines the lexical level in greater detail and provides some specific examples of LIS. This study aims to open a new field of LIS research and to promote translation of informative and cultural material. Moreover, these considerations concerning mainly lexical elements could offer important insights for studies of the linguistics of LIS. This also could make possibile to create a literature in LIS, natural language of deaf people, thus enabling them to access it in a complete and autonomous mode.

The aim of this paper is to investigate how Italian and Spanish fansubbers cope with the translation of intertextuality in order to exploit others’ experience in translation teaching practice. Examples of solutions employed by amateur translators were provided from the serial 'Supernatural', where visual and verbal references to US culture are largely employed. Studying a small corpus of solutions, especially the wrong ones – i.e. those not conveying both reference and function of quotes – we understood that the inadequate level of encyclopaedic knowledge mastered by the young amateur translators may be the cause of erroneous translations. In fact, the procedures they employ to solve intertextual challenges show that most of the fansubbers are not able to recognise the reference behind the quotations, or if they do it, hardly can they recover the proper source or its codified translation into the target culture. As a result, sometimes textual coherence is affected, leading spectators to a general incomprehension of the use of intertextuality.

Error analysis and product assessment are increasingly viewed as reductive procedures in translation pedagogy. In the current paper, a case is made for ‘rehabilitating’ error analysis, especially in advanced L2 translation teaching. Attention is drawn to its usefulness in creating a group profile for L2 translation trainees, particularly as regards the scope it offers for showing how aspects of linguistic transfer frequently considered marginal, when taken individually, are, on the contrary, significant if viewed cumulatively. In the course of the article it is suggested that error analysis can be used dynamically to show that apparently sporadic and ‘low level’ aspects of transfer are among the most frequent problems, and that they consistently interlock with ‘higher-level’ textual and contextual (if not cultural) considerations. Far from encouraging a transmissionist stance on the part of the L1 teachers normally responsible for L2 translation courses, error analysis can be used to empower L2 students. One way in which this can be done is through a focus on technologies that address the issues emerging from the analysis. This should make students increasingly independent of the intuitive, internalized knowledge of their trainers, both in the short term and in the course of their professional careers.

The paper brings a brief presentation of key concepts of the Meaning-Text Theory and focuses on the practical value of its lexicographical tool for the description of syntagmatic meaning relations, i.e. the lexical functions (LFs). Although originally developed to facilitate the description of lexical relationships within the monolingual explanatory-combinatory dictionary, the system of lexical functions proves highly valuable in the bilingual setting as well, particularly in the L1-L2 translation, i.e. in encoding tasks. While translation into the translator’s mother tongue is commonly regarded as less likely to suffer from poor knowledge of collocations, it is the L1-L2 translation that is typically affected by the translators’ erring on the collocational side. On the basis of selected lexical items the paper will bring a brief comparison of lexicographical presentations used in encoding (Slovene-English dictionaries) with the results of the LF-based approach. Applied systematically and consistently within a given lexical field, the encoding-adapted system of LFs will help translation students get a better grasp of the elusive collocability of lexemes.

In the German medical language, but not so much in the Italian one, there are basically two different types of terms: neoclassical terms, compounds made up of Latin or Ancient Greek elements, also named internationalisms, and native terms, mainly morphological calques that preserve the structure of the neoclassical compound but use German elements and are therefore semantically transparent to the general public. This difference between the German and Italian medical language creates some difficulties to the translator, both from German to Italian and from Italian to German, primarily at the lower level of specialized discourse, i.e. in expert-lay communication. This paper will suggest some translation strategies and will illustrate the case of a text genre specific to medical language, the package leaflet.