La traduction des expressions populaires algériennes vers la le français.

Abstract

Long ago self-seeking man lives with a concept he constantly wants to assert: his identity. As soon as he feels dominated by the relationship “ego/other’s ego”, he gets to know more about this “other”, whose identity is different_ undoubtedly_, but so familiar. Here is this man now getting in touch with a world he reads and translates, after learning new languages. This reading initiated him, and still does, to discover the other and get known about himself through his writings; and we cannot evocate the writing hand without talking about literature. Prosaic, poetic or dramatic, the literary genre remains, first, the reference point of the other’s identity and his major denunciatory; thus, the world vision has no secret_ or almost_ to the other who is interested in it. Before we move to the particularities of the present research, let us stay around the literary work to show our main discussing theme which lie in both reading and writing. Indeed, we had been led by literary curiosity when we noticed some unusual linguistic elements in a novelistic work: “Rih El-janoub” (“The wind of south”). Those elements are carried by an authentic feature: a popular language. We mean by authenticity the linguistic and cultural heritage clearly noticed in the author’s writing. Thus, we have asked ourselves about the translator’s behavior of such a feature. However, we won’t dwell

upon the subject before we give an exhaustive outline of both theory and practice concerning our theme very closely. To begin with, from the writer to the reader, so many studies tend to situate the work toward its origins and lectures in what we call “the reception theory”. In fact, in the current thought of literary review, two kinds of relationship with the literary text can be recognized: one considers the literary fact as an autonomy value, independent from the receiver; while the other brings out the fact that it depends completely on the writer’s realization. The first point of view is peculiar to the structuralism and semiotics process in the literary analysis; the second one belongs to the hermeneutic attitude which takes into account Hegel and Schleiermacher’s contributions in this matter. Thus, translation is an exercise of responsibility when responding to the questioning of the “other” as a person endowed with his own world vision_ if the matter isn’t only about the foreign language he carries_, hence the amazing cultural diversity known today, that wouldn’t leave the literary act of translating without any influence. Next, Translation goes where literature likes to go: it follows each one of its trends or tendencies; it brings into light a whole context (historic, social and even ideological) which will define the way the literary work is going to be received, and decode_ consequently_ the metaphoric sense within. The translator tries hard to get through the

writer’s abounding intellect; sometimes he fits into it, at times he loses his criterion; this is undoubtedly the essence of literary subjectivity. So, should we expect some kind of objectivity while translating subjectivity? Here is the reasoning that pushed to come out with theories for this discipline. Translation is now left to the hands of experts, amongst which ideology differs according to their trend: Origin or Target. The first trend favors a solid relationship to the letter and an absolute awareness of the original work; on one hand, this is where we find the famous “Poetics of translation” of Henri Meschonic. His theory is based on the processing structural elements, looking for the best transposition of the literary work from one culture to another. Meschonic suggests a methodology for a poetic translation process and denounces a number of tendencies, certainly less than the prose, whose aim is to “append” poetry. In fact, as much as poetry has a form, it is possible to think that it’s more difficult to deform it when translating, at least when the matter is quantitative. However, when it is about quality, we realize that the level of infidelity is huge, if we consider the result. Thus, one of the main deforming tendencies in poetic translation is “Abstraction”, not in the sense of rationalization, yet in the “ennoblement”. Henri Meschonic believes that a theory of poetic translation is an absolute necessity and that it should be included in that value or signification accorded to the text. As long as translation is a

translinguistic process, it has to be regarded as text writing which can’t be theorized by utterance linguistics or a formal poetics. In addition, the matter is about considering translation on both general and particular plans, not as secondary product yet as an equal value to the original text. The result of such a proposition concerns the transparency and non-transparency of translation, more in intentions than consequences. On the other hand, Antoine Berman brings out an ethical character to translation, denouncing, him too, what he calls “the deforming tendencies” that even Etienne Dolet brought out as prescriptions during the 16th century. These tendencies draw an attention to the fact that “a bad translation” of a novel, i.e. homogenizing it, is also a serious crime of lese-culture: “to betray the novelistic form is to fail to the relationship with the foreigner which it embodies and shows”, he says. Thus, belongs to the classical prescriptions the first tendencies he enumerates: “rationalization”, maintained till now and reinforced in the same capacity of “clarification” and “ennoblement”. The first tendency often means that we explain (clarify) what was unsaid in the original text, and the second one ties the “homogenization” again. As for the other tendencies, we would rather say that they derive from the classical rudiments that constitute what is up-said. The “strengthening” matches “making explicit” (so clarification). The “qualitative and quantitative impoverishment”, the “destruction of the original

system” and the “erasing of polylogism” are all consequences of homogenization; the corollary of those tendencies is “abstraction” that wants the verbs to be replaced by substantives_ which is also noticed in the translation of prose as much as that of poetry. The two kinds of impoverishment that follow in the critic’s enumeration differ from one another in the sense that, in the first case, where quality is impoverished, we undermine the sign’s iconicity and its motivated or palpable aspect; while in the second case, where the quantity is impoverished, we reduce the signifier’s proliferation to one term only (character of the non-fixity of prose). Finally, the letter (not to confuse with the “word for word” that is precisely everything abolished by the target practice) is sacrificed to the meaning in favor of a letter belonging to the target language. The second trend suggests more horizons in the translating perspective. This is where Ladmiral, Mounin and Nida set themselves apart from the willingness of getting rid of that obsessive attachment to the letter which ends up giving a sacred character to both the text and the source language. According to Jean René Ladmiral, some liberty occurs when the translator chooses to tempt any kind of approach such as “adaption” among many others. However, Georges Mounin’s intention is not to deny the linguistic reality of translation, but to prove that it includes “non-linguistic” and “extra linguistic” aspects: The world vision which_ despite the cultural diversity_ gives

way to linguistic, anthropological and cultural universals that uphold the significations within languages. Thus, to know about the culture of the source language allows the identification of the situations common to the target language culture, if we go toward the possible translation. Yet, Mounin’s approach remains under the influence of the concept of equivalence which is badly hidden by the identification of the common situation and universals between languages. He ended up joining Eugene Nida’s conception, according to which, “translation consists of the production in the target language of a natural equivalent so closely to the source language message, first as for the signification, then for the style.” There is no doubt that many sociolinguistic approaches exist within translation, but Eugene Nida remains the author of the most famous one; and whose theory basis gets nourished from some sources: linguistics, sociolinguistics, theology and culture. In addition, through the pattern of translation consisting of a transposition from one language to another, Nida leaves the “target” notion for that of the “receiver”. This undertaking emphasizes more the norm of culture, as he says: “Linguistic features are not the only factors we should take into consideration, “cultural elements” can be more important.” Nida envisages two types of equivalence that influence the act of translation: formal equivalence and dynamical equivalence. The first type cares about the form and the content of the message; it is turned

to the target text. As for the second type, it tends to express the message as naturally as possible, taking into account the receiver’s, striving to produce upon the TL receiver the same effect (equivalent effect) as that produced upon the SL receiver. To remain within the body of translation as a science, we should treat another bringing-in: the style. This last enters irremediably in the structuring process, and therefore, in the literary signification. Certainly, style is the dominating form of the text, conditioned by its inspiration and destination, but it is the result of the writer’s personality, a sign of mood, a series of individual obsessions which appear in the text under punctual and linguistic elements. Thus, if literary translation aims at both form and content, stylistics_ study of forms_ become an integrant part of this strict tentative in restoring forms in the second language which involve effects and meanings within the network of the starting linguistic systems. We cannot talk about stylistics without making reference to Viney and Darbelnet who brought out a new discipline, never thought until now: “comparative stylistics”. It stands mainly on the structural linguistics but trying a little bit to get over it by taking into consideration some non-pure linguistic factors that come into translation, that is to say, the facts (elements), through which both foreign and natural speeches are conditioned, the particular utterance and the message the translator is going to get then transmit in a faithful way to the other language.

So, the speech and each message depend, certainly, on the language structure which carries them to some options that contravene consciously the code of language and flout the utterances where is showed, at many degrees, the speaker’s creativity. In addition, this way of thinking the literary translation reveals the famous “genius of language”, which consists of the stylistic characteristics of both French and English, particularly the study subject of the two theoreticians. On this basis_ and comparing both languages_ many differences of understanding will be spotted and so it is when expressing those differences from one language to another, which obviously leads to problems in translation. Comparing the stylistic structures of the two languages brings a scale on which are recognized their similarities and differences, going from the most close connection_ that would abolish the problems of translation_ till the maximal difference_ that would force to look for some equivalents, always discussable, or even resign to adaptation. On that scale, Vinay and Darbelnet have spotted seven types of procedures that help, according to them, solving any problem of translation; the three first operations constitute the literal translation: loan, calque and literal translation, possible and frequent between languages that belong to the same family and especially the same culture. If the translator admits that such operations are acceptable, then an “indirect translation” imposes itself. It consists of a “transposition”

(replacing a part of speech by another without changing the meaning), a “modulation” (a change of mind within the message), an “equivalence”(giving an account of the same situation in both languages through different stylistic means), and finally an “adaptation” (creation of a situation that doesn’t exist in the target language and judged equivalent). The paradigm of translation didn’t remain, for a long time, under the suggestion of new approaches and alternatives; it is sooner showed through an uncertain culmination, even impossible. In fact, are already noticed different linguistic combinations such as phonetic and articulatory divisions, lexical systems and syntax arrangements. However, communication is not limited to words; it stands also sentences which compound in an inconstant way the messages that the speaker sends to his interlocutor about any referent. Farther, the challenge of untranslatability doesn’t remain here; it reaches a third level, more decisive: speech and texts worked by translator. Are confronted with each other at this level: works, genres and styles, levels of language, other languages interferences, intertextual cross-references, neologisms, plays on words, rhythms, accents and every particularity of a work or style of an author. Also, the matter here is about general hermeneutics where are confronted with each other differentiated world visions, sometimes heterogenic, and which particularities go along till the most modest semantic division or the most insignificant syntax arrangements.

By the present research, the second chapter is going to deal with two bases: language and speaker. First, the “language” is going to be closely seen as part of an inseparable association: language/identity/culture, passing by some linguistic proprieties such as the language registers, linguistic constructions and proverbial expressions. Also, the matter will be about “bilingualism”, the cultural and linguistic heritage till is reached the diglossic character of Algeria, especially its written heritage. It is known that language is by no means just a bloc of words, of grammatical turn of phrases or stereotyped phrases; yet a rather cultural incorporation and a recognition of identity. This last, as declared by Antonio Perotti, is related to every individual’s perception of himself, i.e. his own awareness of existing as a person within a social group in which he shares the same system of signs: the language. Long ago, the definition we could give to a culture, generally throughout a stereotyped manner, allowed defining at the time the individuals belonging to that culture in which they completely recognized themselves. So, the identity couldn’t be conceived unless related to the belonging; every person was meant to posses some kind of distinctive features (or considered as so) which he is part of: an ethnic group, a national group, a religious group, etc. « We don’t live in a country, we live in a language », an Emile Cioran famous work which deals with both of the language and culture in an indissoluble way. Every person who would change the language would also change his culture; and it is truer when it comes

to writers who are the managers of the collective imaginary and whose relationship to the language is obviously more fundamental than that to ordinary mortals. The strong relationship between those three notions makes me believe that the bilingualism_ essence of two different schematizations of reality_ can generate what I would call “wholes” within the translation; even if the good command of both languages is the minimum acquisition that makes the translating process possible. Thus, the “theory of the relative linguistics” wouldn’t miss to regard the cultural parameter in translation. Another point appears in the hard task of translation: the language registers and proverbs. How to achieve a faithful transmission of a message whose language is oriented to a particular receiver? Especially when this receiver is the only person who can decode and understand perfectly that language. Let’s think about the slipshod way of speaking of an SMS (Short Message Service): even the translator who understands well this type of speech would stop for a while to think over the choices of words he’s going to make, then translate into the TL. Similarly, the matter of proverbs is as attractive as confusing since this expressive genre of speech is inscribed within the speaker’s linguistic and cultural heritage; therefore, is it possible that the target language meets effectively the reality he is living? Is it a faithful expression of his aiming and consciousness? Of the folkloric and

cultural heritage he possesses? Here lies the reasoning we will try to elucidate in the practical part of our research. Secondly and in the same optic of “language and speaker” it is the rule to evocate the diglossic situation in Algeria insofar as it acts in the literary field, especially within the novelistic writing; in other words, the mater is not about translating a writing, but a speaking transposed to writing. As taking part in the language formation, literature maintains the language in activity, first, as a collective heritage; it creates an identity and a community. Also, a literary corpus should be a reference so that the language sets as a stable unity (totality). Language, as defined by Umberto Eco, goes wherever it wants, but remains sensitive to literature suggestions; however, the coexistence of two or more languages (or linguistic systems) genetically related_ such as the classical Arabic and the dialectal Arabic (Darija)_ expose translation to the peril of infidelity. In fact, the mission of a translator doesn’t stand on the linguistic manipulation only; he has to equip himself with the textual and intertextual means, first, to decode a linguistic system which is not much common to the written literature; and then to translate it with all the historic heritage it possesses. We speak and think in a language we don’t write, and this language we write is not spoken, we think in it so rarely.

It is about this second language, though being a mother tongue for us, that we are going to talk in the practical part of this research; a rich language with appears in a beautiful way with some popular (dialectal) expressions. Before we move to the analysis of some linguistic models we could pick, let’s get closer a little from the corpus we work on: “Le vent du sud” (The wind of south). The famous novel was written by Abdelhamid Benhadougua and marked every literary mind over the world since it had been translated ten languages. The story tells the modest country life of some villagers among which “Nafissa”_ the story’s heroin_ is an ambitious and intrepid young woman who struggles not to be one of them: ignorant and so passive. (Please, see the novel’s summary and both the author and translator’s biographies). About the formal and stylistic aspect of the novel, we would say that it is marked of three fundamental features. Firstly: a great narration potential holding spellbound the reader who gets impatient to know about the rest of the story before the actual events, not because he’s bored but because ideas are so well coordinated that makes the coherence and cohesion of the whole work. Secondly: the description and detailing of facts, even the simplest ones; and the more reading goes ahead, the more we realize the writer’s prolixity. Thirdly: the abundance of dialogs and monologs whose language is sometimes formal, sometimes informal, through the use of some Algerian dialectal expressions. The French version “Le vent du sud” responds to all features, or nearly: dialogs whose language is dialectal are not always as clear, we think, as the original ones, they depend on the structural and cultural nature of the utterance. This is going to be the thread of our modest study in which some Algerian dialectal expressions we have taken from “Le vent du sud” will be analyzed and developed when translated to French; did Marcel Bois respected the linguistic change? And is it possible to translate a dialectal proverb as simply as a formal one? Let’s observe the following example: " يقول انمثم: إذا شبعت انكرش تقول نهرأس غنّي ني ! " This dialectal proverb expresses the well-being which comes over the speaker after having a full stomach. This is such an irreversible and natural feeling of ease and serenity for a very short time; in other words: a satisfied stomach makes a satisfied soul (mind); and this is how Marcel Bois transposed that meaning: « Pour citer le proverbe de chez nous : Le ventre bien rempli s’adresse à la tête : chante-moi une chanson ». (Our proverb says: « When full, the stomach tells the head to sing a song » It is clear that the translator resorts to a literal process here because the Algerian proverb finds no equivalent in French. However, it seems to us, the French reader might misunderstand the verb “chanter” since it is not meant properly talking, yet the proverb shows some kind of enjoyment felt by the speaker. Jean René Ladmiral says: « Nothing guarantees that literalism is the best way to translate culture”. Basing on this argument, we propose another translation, in the hope to bring something new. « Aux ordres du ventre rassasié, la tête fait d’hors et déjà la fête. » Finally, to conclude the present research, we can tell that his kind of approach has allowed us: on one hand, to assimilate the difficulties of translation such as the cultural, linguistic, psychological problems and those of equivalence. Consequently, the translator turns to undertake some operations sometimes successful, sometimes risked, especially in front of an idiomatic expression within the source language. On the other hand, we got closer to the dialect we speak daily in Algeria as a “tool” or a “service” language on one hand, and as a “culture” language in the way it conceals a wonderful heritage that all Algerian shares with each other.