Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Key Issues
Key Issues
e.g. pastry
flour dough or paste made with shortening and used for the
crust of pies, tarts, etc.
Kako se zovete?
NB:
1:1 relationshup? (reare)
1: many relationship: (What: kako, koliko, kakav, etc.)
TARGET LANGUAGE
TRANSLATION
ANALYSIS
RESTRUCTURING
TRANSFER
'hello'
(Standard) E - used as a friendly greeting when meeting
F - a va?, hallo
G - Wie geht's?, hallo
I - Ola, pronto, ciao
H - Bog, ciao, haj, zdravo, halo
E: hello - same word for:
a) greeting someone face to face
b) when answering the phone
D,G,H - all make the same distinction (a, b)
F,G,H
- also use c) brief rhetorical questions
as a form of greeting:
Wie geht's?, a va?, Kako ste?
I - ciao : - the most frequent form of greeting in all
layers/society and situations
- also used on arrival / departure - greeting is linked
to the moment of contact
THEREFORE: when translating hello from E into H/F/I:
- the TLR must first extract from the term hello:
a) the core meaning (friendly greeting on arrival) DECODING
b) stages of the process of meeting/greeting
(interlingua) , and then
c) decide to distinguish between the forms of greeting
available in TL (RE-ENCODING)
THE PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS however will also include
other considerations:
- oui, si (F) - affirmative, but also in contention,
contradicting, dissent)
- stylistic function of stringing (F,H,I)
- social context of greeting (telephonic, face to face, class
poition & status of speakers)
WNWD
1. equal in value, measure, force, effect,
or significance: His silence is equivalent to
an admission of guilt.
2. corresponding in position, function, etc.
3. having the same extent, as a triangle and
a square of equal area.
4. Math. (of two sets) able to be placed in
one-to-one correspondence.
Source of misinterpretations:
LANGUAGE
or or
MATHEMATICS
?'sameness'?
sentence-to-sentence
word-for-word
concept-to-concept
aims to allow the reader to understand as
much of the SL context as possible
DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE
based on the principle of
EQUIVALENT EFFECT : i.e. the
relationship between the
RECEIVER/MESSAGE should aim to
be the SAME as that between the
ORIGINAL RECEIVER and the SL
MESSAGE
- the communicative model of TR
Any TR (i.e. each of its many possible versions) should aim at:
(a)preserving the INVARIANT CORE of the original
(basic semantic elements)
(b) TRANSFORMATIONS - to add the expressive
form (e.g. poems)
BUT: invariant - an indefinable quality that TLRs rarely achieve.
Russian Formalists
Prague Linguists
discourse analysis
EQUIVALENCE: - when between the TLT and the SLT there exists a
relationship which can be designated as a TRANSLATIONAL
EQUIVALENCE or equivalence relation (Koller 1995)
FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE - a kind of adequacy in which:
- the TLT serves the same communicative function as the SLT (a
functional TR)
e.g. SLT: Is life worth living?
- It depends upon the liver!
F: La vie, vaut-elle la peine?
- C'est une question de foi(e)!
G: Ist das Leben lebenswert?
- Das haengt von den
Lebenwerten ab?
H: Isplati li se ivjeti?
- To ovisi o ?
F & G TR - functional TR - fulfil the same communicative function (a play
on words)
E 'liver' (homonymy)
F 'foi'
(homophony: foi/faith and foie/liver)
G similarity (worth living - lebenswert); (liver count Leberwerte)
H. CONCLUSION:
EQ in TR should NOT be approached as a search for sameness,
- since sameness cannot even exist between two TL versions of the
same text
- let alone between the SLT and the TLT
- Popovi's four types of EQ - a useful starting point
and Neubert's three semiotic categories :
point the way towards an approach that perceives EQ as a
dialectic relationship between the signs and the structures
within and surrounding the SLT and the TLT.
- Communicative (Nida) and functional approach (Vermeer,
Toury)
3. Presupposed
- Arises from co-occurrence of restrictions (i.e. what other words
or
expressions we expect to see before and after a particular
lexical unit)
a) Selectional restrictions : depend on the propositional
meaning (adj. clever invokes a human subject; triangular
an inanimate subject)
b) Collocational restrictions: semantically arbitrary restr. do
not follow
logically from the propositional meaning;
e.g. laws are broken in English but violated (CRO),
contradicted in Arabic:
e.g. brush the teeth prati/wash in
Croatian/Polish/German/Italian
e.g. donijeti zakon pass the law; poloiti ispit pass /
It. superare
4. Evoked
6. Untranslatability
LINGUISTIC: (Catford 1965)
- no lexical or syntactical substitute in the TL for a SL term:
e.g. I found your message on the table. Naao sam Vau poruku na
stolu.
e.g. Koliko je sati? U koliko sati je doao vlak?- CRO sentence
(formally) untranslatable in E
- adjustments must be made in TL (word order, lexical
choice/restrictions, tense, etc.) to produce an acceptable sentence
and translation
CULTURAL /SITUATIONAL:
- absence in the TL culture of a relevant situational feature for the
SLT:
e.g. bathroom, soda; plava riba, bijela riba, sitna stoka,
krupna stoka; gornji tok, ciklona-anticiklona
e.g. Dobar tek!
Hvala!
Izvolite!
Hvala.
Nema na emu.
Juer su bile tri prometne u okolici Rijeke.
Problems: a) LING. - lack of denotation or connotation
b) CULT. - what is a cult. unit?, arbitrariness, culture-bound
concepts
e.g. democracy, home (normally translatable in H, G) international
term,
BUT: different values in:
-
THEREFORE
- there is no doubt that communication through translation can
never be completely finished,
- which also demonstrates that it is never wholly impossible either.
7. Language
TEXT
RECEIVER = TRANSLATOR
TEXT
RECEIVER
a definition of translation: