A Key Concept in Modern Translation Theory - Redalyc

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Equivalence Revisited: A Key Concept in Modern Translation Theory por SERGIO BOLAÑOS CUÉLLAR * Departamento de Lingüística UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE COLOMBIA This paper attempts to discuss the importance, relevance and validity of the concept of equivalence as a constitutive notion in translation theory. Equivalence is defined as a relation that holds between a Source Language (SL) text and a Target Language (TL) text. Our conception of equivalence is supported by a modern text-linguistic theory that considers that the text is the unit of analysis of the communicative event and, as translation itself is seen as a communicative event, then logically, it should be studied from a modern textlinguistic approach. A brief background is provided to support this perspective. However, this is a point of view not necessarily shared by all modern translation theorists and, therefore, two antagonistic positions in translation theory as well as the criticism against Linguistics/Text-oriented Theories (TOT) are analyzed. Then arguments for and against the notion of equivalence within TOT and COT (Non-Linguistics/Context-oriented Theories) are discussed in detail and new perspectives reviewed. Finally, equivalence within the framework of a Dynamic Translation Model (DTM) is discussed and a brief illustration of its application in translation criticism is provided. Key terms: Translation Equivalence, Linguistics/Text-oriented Theories (TOT), Non-Linguistics/Context-oriented Theories (COT), Dynamic Translation Model (DTM) 1. BACKGROUND In memoriam Felipe Pardo About a decade ago (Bolaños 1990), we postulated the hypothesis that translation could be accounted for within the field of linguistics if a gradual approximation to explaining its nature was used beginning with the revision of the contribution Structural Linguistics and Generative Transformational Grammar * sbolanoc@yahoo.com FORMA Y FUNCIÓN 15 (2002), páginas 60-88. © Departamento de Lingüística, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, D.C.
SERGIO BOLAÑOS CUELLAR 61 could eventually make to the understanding of this particular case of languages in contact, known as translation. It turned out that not much was to be expected from these two linguistic approaches. However, a third approach, that we labeled ‘communicative’ (pragmatic) at that time could indeed provide interesting insights as to the possibility of explaining what was going on in the process of translating. Since then we have been working in this direction trying to prove our initial hypothesis was wrong (or right). This communicative approach has widened our perspectives, especially with regard to the way language actually works. Linguistics, the scientific study of language, had traditionally been concerned with the study of what Saussure called ‘la langue’, that is, the historically and socially determined linguistic systems (e.g. English, French, Spanish, etc). It is not until the 70s that a new orientation in linguistic studies takes place (cf. G.Helbig 1986). Within this new approach much emphasis is placed on ‘la parole’ (speech), that is, on language use. New language-related disciplines emerged and consolidated, among others, Textlinguistics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis, Sociolinguistics, and Psycholinguistics. Of all these new disciplines it is Textlinguistics which we deem to be of special relevance for explaining the nature of translation both as a process and as a product. Textlinguistics plays a crucial and decisive role in the study of language use and obviously in the case of translation it does have a close relation with other disciplines such as Pragmatics, Sociolinguistics and Psycholinguistics. The central role played by the text in language use is explained by Hartmann (1971:15): “Contrary to the current abstract and reductionist limitation to the linguistic system, text-oriented linguistics corresponds more strongly to the linguistic reality, to the fact that language only occurs and functions in texts, that the so-far-prevailing linguistic units (such as phoneme, morpheme, word, and sentence) do not occur or have meaning by themselves or as such but depend on previously arranged intentions and goals, on basic units, which provide them with sense, that is, with the capacity to function.” 1 On the other hand, in our initial proposal of a Model for the Analysis of a Text as a Communicative Event (Bolaños 1995), we also pointed out that there were three core components for analyzing language use: Sender, Text, and Receiver. 1 “Gegenüber der bisherigen abstraktiven und reduktionistischen Beschränkung auf das Sprachsystem wird eine auf Texte orientierte Linguistik der Sprachwirklichkeit stärker gerecht, der Tatsache, dass Sprache nur textförmig vorkommt und funktioniert, dass die bisher herausgehobenen Einheiten (wie z.B. Phonem, Morphem, Wort, und Satz) an sich oder als solche weder vorkommen noch Sinn haben, sondern von vorgeordneten Absichten und Zwecken, von fundierten Einheiten abhängig sind, die ihnen erst Sinn, d.h. Funktionsfähigkeit verleihen.” (The translations are ours unless otherwise indicated ).
Page 1: Red de Revistas Científicas de Am
Page 5 and 6: SERGIO BOLAÑOS CUELLAR 63 Once tra
Page 7 and 8: SERGIO BOLAÑOS CUELLAR 65 Non-Ling
Page 9 and 10: SERGIO BOLAÑOS CUELLAR 67 realize
Page 11 and 12: SERGIO BOLAÑOS CUELLAR 69 del leng
Page 13 and 14: SERGIO BOLAÑOS CUELLAR 71 very nat
Page 15 and 16: SERGIO BOLAÑOS CUELLAR 73 macro-te
Page 17 and 18: SERGIO BOLAÑOS CUELLAR 75 “Equiv
Page 19 and 20: SERGIO BOLAÑOS CUELLAR 77 Some asp
Page 21 and 22: SERGIO BOLAÑOS CUELLAR 79 communic
Page 23 and 24: SERGIO BOLAÑOS CUELLAR 81 text its
Page 25 and 26: SERGIO BOLAÑOS CUELLAR 83 ‘una c
Page 27 and 28: SERGIO BOLAÑOS CUELLAR 85 is not j
Page 29 and 30: SERGIO BOLAÑOS CUELLAR 87 HARTMANN

A Key Concept in Modern Translation Theory - Redalyc

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?