Meaning modification

Meaning modification (MM) has been defined as “translation shifts in which the particular meaning of the TT is not immediately based on an obvious interpretation of the ST” (Murtisari 2013: 341). This implies that MM is neither a development of the logical form of the source text nor the recovery of any of its implicatures (Ibid.). The TT is instead modified by the translator for particular effects in the TT, for instance for stylistic reasons or cultural adaptations as evidenced in the forthcoming examples. Although MM is not treated as a form of implicitation in RT framework since it is neither a development of the logical form of the ST nor the recovery of any of its implicatures, this article would not disregard it altogether. This is because the discourse-based approach account of implicitation handles MM as a case of implicitation since the TT meaning is not analysed on account of its relationship with the ST and defines it as any type of changes in the form of the source text which result in achieving a better and more readable text in the target language. One account of MM is:

12. ST: He looked up the tracks...

TT: Alola lwe chinyilili che likari…

BT: He looked toward the gaps in the surface of the train…

The translator modifies the ST ‘tracks’ to ‘gaps in the surface’ in the TT. The Lubukusu term chinyilili not only means gaps in the surface but also holes in the surface. This translation allows the target audience to make deductions within the context to give the original meaning of train tracks in the ST. The translator assists the target audience’s cognitive store to understand this by adding the phrase ‘of the train’ to mean not just any holes/gaps in any surface, but those of the train. Worth noting is the fact that there are two strategies applied for this translation. One is modification as already noted and the other is explicitation. Explicitation is employed when ‘of the train’ is added as an explanation to ‘gaps on the surface’, which would otherwise not make sense to the target audience. In this example, although the ST was modified, the TT translation may still remain confusing to the target audience since the meaning is not clearly expressed. The same account in this example:

13. ST: … of beer and two felt pads.

TT: …che kamalwa nende bikara biyeemesa bibili.

BT: ...of beer and two ring of leaves for the table.

The ST ‘felt pads’ translated as ‘ring of leaves’ is a clear modification in attempt to make the target audience decipher the ST. Felt pads are foreign objects in Bukusu culture and are thus not present in the target audience’s cognitive store. The translators opt for bikara, the plural of khakara, as the belittled form of engara, which refers to a ring made of leaves, grass, fiber, banana-bark and the like put on the head to support a load or any ring-shaped article of the table. Of course, the first meaning of engara as an object would be unnatural to place a drinking glass on top. The second meaning as a ring-shaped article of the table is both implicit and explicit. It is implicit because it is an article of the table, but might serve any other purpose other than for holding drinking glasses. And it is explicit since it is described as ring-shaped yet the ST does not specify its shape. It would also be unnatural to place a glass in the ring-shaped article of the table since in Bukusu culture this article is used for holding pots or calabashes for balance.

This translation of ‘felt pads’ to the traditional ‘ring of leaves for supporting loads on the head or placing on the table’ gives different information to the target audience of the translation that the latter exists in the source context and is used in the same way as in the Bukusu culture. A different kind of modification occurs in the earlier example:

14. ST: He looked up the tracks...

TT: Alola lwe chinyilili che likari…

BT: He looked toward the gaps in the surface of the train…

Here, modification of the ST word ‘up’ for the TT word ‘toward’ is not just its formal equivalence, but also its communicative equivalence in the target culture. This modification is implemented in line with the translator’s general cognitive knowledge and plays a crucial role in making the translation intelligible to the target audience. In English, someone can look “up”, to mean that

“(s)he looked at” and should not be confused with the linguistic equation “to look up” which means “to seek information from”. In Lubukusu, someone can look “toward”, to mean that “(s)he looked in a certain direction”. To literary translate “up” as mungaki is only specific to mean “to look upward”. The translator thus chose modification to retain meaning. In the next example, modification causes the meaning to be somewhat innovated:

15. ST: The beer’s nice and cool.

TT: Kamalwa kano kamalayi lundi kamanyifu.

BT: This beer is nice and cold.

In the ST, the adjective ‘cool’ has been used to describe the beer. The term has been modified to

“cold” in the TT. In the source language, these terms are not the same such that the degree of the two temperatures differ. “Cold” means having very low temperatures as compared to “cool”, which is neither of very low temperatures nor warm. Lubukusu, on the other hand, only has -nyifu to mean “cold, damp or wet”. Due to this lack of available vocabulary another translator opted for:

16. ST: The beer’s nice and cool.

TT: Kamalwa kano kamalayi po!

BT: This beer is extremely nice!

In this example, it can be observed that two strategies of translation have been applied. First, there is deletion of the conjunction ‘and’ and the adjective “cool”. Second, the translator has modified ‘nice’ by use of po, which is an exclamation used to express extremity or surprise in Lubukusu. In this context, the exclamation in the TT is natural and passes a crystal message that the beer is appreciated. This is because of the consciousness and grammatical structure specific to the language (Sikora 2010: 169) and may seem difficult to achieve the intended translation.

This may make the nuance of the ST sound awkward and unnatural in the TT when it is not modified in the ST. Sikora (Ibid.) further states that this does not mean translation to the TT is not possible at all, but that it requires cultural adaptation and linguistic modification to make it acceptable in the target context. These sentiments can also be applied to example 13. Another instance would be:

17. ST: …hotels where they had spent nights.

TT: …biimenyelo nimwo bakonanga.

BT: …dwelling places where they had been sleeping.

The ST uses the term “hotel”, which can be defined as a building where travellers can pay for lodging and meals and other services. This term has been coined in Kiswahili to hoteli and adopted by the Bukusu as “e[h]oteli”. In spite of this, it would be unnatural to use it in this context since in the target audience context the term refers to a building where one can only pay for meals and no other services. Thus, the translator preferred to use biimenyelo, which means

“dwelling places” to satisfy the target audience’s cognitive store.