Abstract
This paper analyzes the translation of five child protection assessments and decisions from Finnish into English. Translators of such text have to make difficult decisions in relation to the linguistic resources of the end users, namely the child’s parents or custodians, because it is impossible for the translator to assess their linguistic resources. Therefore, it is difficult to strike a balance between an accurate translation and a pragmatically felicitous translation. Besides, these texts are typically translated by community interpreters who have no formal training in translation. A total of 18 examples of translation problems related to terminology, nominalization, passive constructions, and speech representation were analyzed by mobilizing different linguistic theories related to each category. The results show that the target texts present several accommodation strategies aimed at rendering the translations more accessible. Thus, terms are explained or glossed, and terms, grammatical constructions, and complex forms of reported speech are simplified. More awareness-raising among different stakeholders is needed in order to produce translations that really empower migrant communities.
Tiivistelmä
Kirjoituksessa tarkastellaan lastensuojelun päätösten ja selvitysten kääntämistä suomesta englantiin. Tällaisten tekstien kääntäminen on haasteellista, sillä käännösten käyttäjät ovat hyvin harvoin syntyperäisiä englannin kielen puhujia. Käännöksen on siis säilytettävä lähtötekstin laillinen voima, mutta lisäksi käännöksen käyttäjän eli lapsen huoltajan on voitava ymmärtää käännös. Usein tekstejä kääntävät asioimistulkit, joilla ei ole kääntäjän koulutusta. Analysoitavaksi valittiin 18 käännösongelmaesimerkkiä, jotka edustavat terminologiaa, nominalisaatiota, passiivirakenteita ja referointia. Tulosten perusteella kääntäjät käyttävät useita sopeuttamiskeinoja, joilla he lisäävät käännösten saavutettavuutta. Keinoja ovat muun muassa kaksikielinen merkitseminen (glossaaminen), selittäminen, monimutkaisten rakenteiden yksinkertaistaminen ja kieliopillinen “luonnonmukaistaminen” eli prototyypillisen kategorian käyttäminen (esim. verbin käyttäminen substantiivin sijaan kerrottaessa tapahtumisesta tai tekemisestä). Ongelmien ratkaisemiseksi olisi tärkeää lisätä kielellistä tietämystä kaikkien lastensuojelutekstien kanssa tekemisessä olevien henkilöiden parissa.
About the author
Simo K. Määttä is Assistant Professor of Translation Studies at the University of Helsinki. His research focuses on language ideologies, language policies, and the politics of language in translation and interpreting. In addition, his research interests include verbal aggression and hate speech, and currently also asylum interpreting. His theoretical background is in critical discourse analysis, critical sociolinguistics, and sociological translation studies.
Appendix: Abbreviations used
Verb morphology
- 1-SG
1st-person singular
- 3-SG
3rd-person singular
- 3-PL
3rd-person plural
- 1-IN
1st infinitive or A infinitive
- 3-IN
3rd infinitive or MA infinitive
- 4-IN
4th infinitive or MINEN infinitive
- 1-PC
1st participle
- 2-PC
2nd participle
- 5-PC
5th participle
- AUX
auxiliary verb
- AUX-NEG
auxiliary negation verb
- CD
conditional mode
- IP
imperfect tense
- PR
present tense
- PS
passive voice
- Noun morphology
- AB
ablative case
- AD
adessive case
- AL
allative case
- GN
genitive case
- GN-AC
accusative (total object) case in the genitive form
- EL
elative case
- ES
essive case
- IL
illative case
- IN
inessive case
- NM
nominative case
- PL
plural
- PT
partitive case (including partial object)
References
Baynham, Mike & Stef Slembrouck. 1999. Speech representation and institutional discourse. Text 19(4). 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1999.19.4.439.Search in Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan 2005. Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511610295Search in Google Scholar
Catford, John Cunnison. 1965. A linguistic theory of translation. London: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Child Welfare Act. 4172017. Available at: https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/2006/en20060583_20060583.pdf (accessed 17 October 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Child welfare union = central union for child welfare. 2010. Glossary. https://www.lastensuojelu.info/en/glossary/ (accessed 13 October 2019).Search in Google Scholar
City of Helsinki. 2018. Child welfare. Available at: https://www.hel.fi/helsinki/en/socia-health/family/welfare/ (accessed 17 October 2019).Search in Google Scholar
City of Helsinki. 2019. InfoFinland – Finland in your language. Available at: https://www.infofinland.fi/en/about-the-service (accessed 17 October 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Cogo, Alessia. 2009. Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of pragmatic strategies. In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and findings, 254–273. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Cornelius, Eleanor. 2010. Plain language as alternative textualization. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 8(2). 171–183. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2010.519106.Search in Google Scholar
Dewey, Martin. 2011. Accommodative ELF talk and teacher knowledge. In Alessia Cogo, Alasdair Archibald & Jennifer Jenkins (eds.), Latest trends in ELF research, 205–228. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela & José Manuel Ureña Gómez-Moreno. 2012. Specialized language translation. In Pamela Faber (ed.), A cognitive linguistics view of terminology and specialized language, 73–92. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110277203Search in Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela & Clara Inés López Rodríguez. 2012. Terminology and specialized language. In Pamela Faber (ed.), A cognitive linguistics view of terminology and specialized language, 9–32. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110277203Search in Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2001. Language and power. Harlow: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Guido, Maria Grazia. 2012. ELF authentication and accommodation strategies in crosscultural immigration encounters. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(2). 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2012-0017.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood & Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Heino, Eveliina & Nadezda Kärmeniemi. 2013. Cultural interpretation as an empowering method in social work with immigrant families. In Maritta Törrönen, Olga Borodkina, Valentina Samoylova & Eveliina Heino (eds.), Empowering social work: Research and practice, 88–116. Kotka: Palmenia Centre for Continuing Education, University of Helsinki.Search in Google Scholar
Katisko, Marja. 2013. Families of immigrant background as clients of child protection services. In Maritta Törrönen, Olga Borodkina, Valentina Samoylova & Eveliina Heino (eds.), Empowering social work: Research and practice, 118–144. Kotka: Palmenia Centre for Continuing Education, University of Helsinki.Search in Google Scholar
Lastensuojelulaki [‘Child Welfare Act’] 13.4.2007/417. Available at: https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2007/20070417 (accessed 17 October 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. & Michael H. Short. 1981. Style in fiction. A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose. London: Longman.10.2307/1772012Search in Google Scholar
Lesch, Harold. 2018. From practice to theory: Societal factors as a norm governing principle for community translation. In Mustapha Taibi (ed.), Translating for the community, 69–97. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783099146-008Search in Google Scholar
Lillis, Theresa. 2017. Imagined, prescribed and actual text trajectories: The “problem” with case notes in contemporary social work. Text & Talk 37(4). 485–508. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2017-0013.Search in Google Scholar
Määttä, Simo. 2015. Interpreting the discourse of reporting: The case of police and asylum interviews in Finland. Translation & Interpreting 7(3). 21–35. http://www.transint.org/index.php/transint/.Search in Google Scholar
Määttä, Simo. 2017. English as a lingua franca in telephone interpreting: Representations and linguistic justice. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 22. 39‒56. https://www.openstarts.units.it/handle/10077/2119.Search in Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian. 2001. The environments of translation. In Erich Steiner & Colin Yallop (eds.), Exploring translation and multilingual text production: Beyond content, 41–126. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110866193.41Search in Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Piehl, Aino. 2006. The influence of EU legislation on Finnish legal discourse. In Maurizio Gotti & Davide S. Giannoni (eds.), New trends in specialized discourse analysis: Linguistic insights, 183–194. Bern: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael & Greg Urban. 1996. The natural history of discourse. In Michael Silverstein & Greg Urban (eds.), Natural histories of discourse, 1–17. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Statistics Finland. 2020. Population structure. Available at: http://www.stat.fi/til/vaerak/index_en.html (accessed 15 April 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Taibi, Mustapha. 2018. Quality assurance in community translation. In Mustapha Taibi (ed.), Translating for the community, 7–25. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783099146-005Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
