88 INTRODUCING TRANSLATION STUDIES

4.1 Vinay and Darbelnet’s model

Influenced by earlier work by the Russian theorist and translator Andrei Fedorov
(1953), as described by Mossop (2013) and Pym (2016), Vinay and Darbelnet
carried out a comparative stylistic analysis of French and English. They looked at
texts in both languages, noting differences between the languages and identifying
different translation ‘strategies’ and ‘procedures’. These terms are sometimes
confused in writing about translation. As we saw in Chapter 1 (pp. 23–4), in the
technical sense a strategy is an overall orientation of the translator (e.g. towards
‘free’ or ‘literal’ translation, towards the TT or ST, towards domestication or
foreignization) whereas a procedure is a specific technique or method used by
the translator at a certain point in a text (e.g. the borrowing of a word from the SL,
the addition of an explanation or a footnote in the TT).

4.1 Exploration: Metalanguage of strategies and procedures

See the article by Gil Bardají (2009) on the ITS website for a further discus-
sion of terms.

Although the model proposed in Stylistique comparée . . . centres solely on

the French–English pair, its influence has been much wider. It built on work on
French–German translation (Malblanc 1944/1963) and inspired two similar books
on English–Spanish translation: Vázquez-Ayora’s Introducción a la traductología
[‘Introduction to traductology’] (1977) and García Yebra’s Teoría y práctica de la
traducción [‘Theory and practice of translation’] (1982). A later French response
to the work was Chuquet and Paillard’s Approche linguistique des problèmes de
traduction [‘Linguistic approach to problems of translation’] (1987). Vinay and
Darbelnet’s model came to wider prominence in 1995 when it was published in
revised form in English translation, thirty-seven years after the original.2

4.1.1 Two strategies and seven procedures

The two general translation strategies identified by Vinay and Darbelnet

(1995/2004: 128–37) are (i) direct translation and (ii) oblique translation,
 STUDYING TRANSLATION PRODUCT AND PROCESS 89

which hark back to the ‘literal vs. free’ division discussed in Chapter 2. Indeed,
‘literal’ is given by the authors as a synonym for direct translation (1995: 31;
2004: 128). The two strategies comprise seven procedures, of which direct
translation covers three:

(1) Borrowing: The SL word is transferred directly to the TL. This category
(1995: 31–2; 2004: 129) covers words such as the Russian rouble, datcha,
the later glasnost and perestroika, that are used in English and other
languages to fill a semantic gap in the TL. Sometimes borrowings may be
employed to add local colour (sushi, kimono, Osho –gatsu . . . in a tourist
brochure about Japan, for instance). Of course, in some technical fields
there is much borrowing of terms (e.g. computer, internet, from English to
Malay). In languages with differing scripts, borrowing entails an additional
need for transcription, as in the borrowings of mathematical, scientific and
other terms from Arabic into Latin and, later, other languages (e.g. [al-
jabr] to algebra).
(2) Calque: This is ‘a special kind of borrowing’ (1995: 32–3; 2004: 129–30)
where the SL expression or structure is transferred in a literal translation.
For example, the French calque science-fiction for the English.
Vinay and Darbelnet note that both borrowings and calques often become
fully integrated into the TL, although sometimes with some semantic change,
which can turn them into false friends. An example is the German Handy for
a mobile (cell) phone.
(3) Literal translation (1995: 33–5; 2004: 130–2): This is ‘word-for-word’
translation, which Vinay and Darbelnet describe as being most common
between languages of the same family and culture. Their example is:

English ST: I left my spectacles on the table downstairs.

French TT: Jv ai laissé mes lunettes sur la table en bas.

Literal translation is the authors’ prescription for good translation: ‘literal-

ness should only be sacrificed because of structural and metalinguistic
requirements and only after checking that the meaning is fully preserved’
(1995: 288).3 But, say Vinay and Darbelnet (ibid.: 34–5), the translator may
judge literal translation to be ‘unacceptable’ for what are grammatical,
syntactic or pragmatic reasons.
In those cases where literal translation is not possible, Vinay and Darbelnet
say that the strategy of oblique translation must be used. This covers a
further four procedures:
90 INTRODUCING TRANSLATION STUDIES

(4) Transposition: This is a change of one part of speech for another (e.g. noun
for verb) without changing the sense. Transposition can be:

Q obligatory: French dès son lever [‘upon her rising’] in a past context
would be translated by as soon as she got up; or
Q optional: in the reverse direction, the English as soon as she got up
could be translated into French literally as dès qu’elle s’est levée or as
a verb-to-noun transposition in dès son lever [‘upon her rising’].
Vinay and Darbelnet (1995: 94) see transposition as ‘probably the most
common structural change undertaken by translators’. They list at least ten
different categories, such as:

verb A noun: they have pioneered A they have been the first;
adverb A verb: He will soon be back A He will hurry to be back.

(5) Modulation: This changes the semantics and point of view of the SL. It
can be:
Q obligatory: e.g. the time when translates as le moment où [lit. ‘the
moment where’];
Q optional, though linked to preferred structures of the two languages:
e.g. the reversal of point of view in it is not difficult to show > il est facile
de démontrer [lit. ‘it is easy to show’].

Modulation is a procedure that is justified ‘when, although a literal, or even

transposed, translation results in a grammatically correct utterance, it is
considered unsuitable, unidiomatic or awkward in the TL’ (2004: 133).
Vinay and Darbelnet place much store by modulation as ‘the touchstone
of a good translator’, whereas transposition ‘simply shows a very good
command of the target language’ (ibid.: 246). Modulation at the level of
message is subdivided (ibid.: 246–55) along the following lines:

abstract< >concrete, or particular< >general: She can do no

other > She cannot act differently; Give a pint of blood > Give a little
blood
explicative modulation, or effect< >cause: You’re quite a stranger
> We don’t see you any more.
whole< >part: He shut the door in my face > He shut the door in my
nose
 STUDYING TRANSLATION PRODUCT AND PROCESS 91

part< >another part: He cleared his throat > He cleared his voice
reversal of terms: You can have it > I’ll give it to you
negation of opposite: It does not seem unusual > It is very normal
active< >passive: We are not allowed to access the internet > they
don’t allow us to access the internet
rethinking of intervals and limits in space and time: No parking
between signs > Limit of parking
change of symbol (including fixed and new metaphors): Fr. La
moutarde lui monta au nez [‘The mustard rose up to his nose’] > En. He
saw red [‘he became very angry’].

Modulation therefore covers a wide range of phenomena. There is also

often a process of originally free modulations becoming fixed expressions.
One example given by Vinay and Darbelnet (1995: 254) is Vous l’avez
échappé belle [lit. ‘You have escaped beautifully’] > You’ve had a narrow
escape.
(6) Équivalence, or idiomatic translation:4 Vinay and Darbelnet use this
term (1995: 38–9; 2004: 134) to refer to cases where languages describe
the same situation by different stylistic or structural means. Équivalence is
particularly useful in translating idioms and proverbs: the sense, though not
the image, of comme un chien dans un jeu de quilles [lit. ‘like a dog in a
game of skittles’] can be rendered as like a bull in a china shop. The use of
équivalence in this restricted sense should not be confused with the more
common theoretical use discussed in Chapter 3 of this book.
(7) Adaptation (1995: 39–40; 2004: 134–6): This involves changing the
cultural reference when a situation in the source culture does not exist in the
target culture. For example, Vinay and Darbelnet suggest that the cultural
connotation of a reference to the game of cricket in an English text might be
best translated into French by a reference to the Tour de France. The authors
claim that a refusal to use such adaptation in an otherwise ‘perfectly correct’
TT ‘may still be noticeable by an undefinable tone, something that does not
sound quite right’ (1995: 53). However, whereas their solution may work for
some restricted metaphorical uses, it would make little sense to change the
domain cricket to that of cycling in phrases such as that isn’t cricket (‘that
isn’t fair’) or ‘a sleepy Wednesday morning county match at Lords [cricket
ground in London]’.