La présente version de l'outil Favourite Articles a été archivée et ne sera plus mise à jour jusqu'à son retrait définitif.
Veuillez consulter la version remaniée de l'outil Favourite Articles pour obtenir notre contenu le plus à jour, et n'oubliez pas de modifier vos favoris!
French writers in Canada tend to avoid personifying institutions. Where in English we would write "talks with Laval University," in French one often finds "des pourparlers avec des représentants de l’Université Laval." A favourite word used by French writers in such contexts is that notorious headache for English translators, "responsables." Thus instead of "donner un préavis au Ministère," we may find "donner un préavis aux responsables du Ministère."
As evidence of this tendency in French, consider some English-to-French translations taken from the Translation Bureau’s on-line archive of completed translations for the year 2002. A query with the search string "responsables du Ministère" yielded 380 hits. I examined the first 30 English-to-French hits, looking for all instances of the word "responsables" in the French translation. Unsurprisingly, when this word was used as a noun, it was most often the translation of "officials," but I did find four cases in which the English source text used personification:
Of course, this does not tell us how often French translators added the word "responsables" when the English text personified an institution.1 I did not read through the full text of the 30 hits to discover all instances of personification. Still, the fact that in the above four cases the translators had to more or less consciously add a word (that is, no word in the original English was translatable as "responsables") does suggest a tendency, if not in French generally, then at least in formal written French, to avoid personification of institutions.
Now, what do English translators do when faced with "responsables" in a French text? Do they omit it or do they translate it? I looked at all the French-to-English translations in the above-mentioned hitlist, skipping over the large number of job descriptions that had similar or identical wordings, as well as cases where "responsables" was an adjective modifying some noun other than "personnes" or "gens" (e.g. "les ministres responsables"). Here is what I found. In two cases (1 and 2 below), the translator used personification. In five cases (3 to 7), the translator did not use personification; an alternative translation with personification is shown in brackets. Finally, in two cases (8 and 9), personification would not work, for the reason explained in brackets.2
How should we explain the translations where "officials" could have been deleted but wasn’t? Could it be argued that "responsables" has rightly been retained in order to avoid personification of institutions in English? No, because personification is not only extremely common in English, it is also uncontroversial: a check of several style guides (The Canadian Style, the Oxford Dictionary of Canadian English Usage, Editing Canadian English, The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage, The Complete Plain Words) reveals that while other kinds of personification are sometimes discussed (e.g. referring to a country as "she"), personification of institutions is never mentioned.
Could it be argued that the translator failed to catch an error in English idiom? No, the translations without personification ("officials in the Department") are perfectly idiomatic English. Indeed, there are cases, like example 4 above, where "officials" or some such word is necessary.
It would seem that the translators simply failed to consider the possibility (as opposed to the necessity) of omission. This could be a result of the speed at which they were checking their work (i.e. they did not attend to expressions that were not obviously wrong). Or it may be that some of the translators did not recognize the expression "responsables" as a device for avoiding personification in French. Instead, they rendered this word (or similar words like "représentants") as if it had important semantic value. However, in a great many cases where such words appear with the name of an institution, they are semantically redundant. If you are notifying "the Department" of something, who else would you notify other than "les responsables"? If you are negotiating with Laval University, whom would you negotiate with other than "representatives" of that institution? The words "responsables" and "représentants" in such cases are devoid of content. No meaning is lost if they are omitted.
What we are seeing here is an instance of a phenomenon much noted in recent large-corpus studies comparing translations with original writing in the target language:3 translations are often found to contain a certain language/style feature (in this case, personification) in significantly different proportions from texts originally written in the target language. Thus a larger study might reveal that English translations from French use personification of institutions less often than original English writing uses it.
© Services publics et Approvisionnement Canada, 2024
TERMIUM Plus®, la banque de données terminologiques et linguistiques du gouvernement du Canada
Outils d'aide à la rédaction – Favourite Articles
Un produit du Bureau de la traduction