Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
perspective of communicative importance. Thematic elements may be identified as those which present known information, while rhematic elements are those which introduce new information. The theme-rheme sequence is carried on, through commitment-response, to a point beyond which any more textual element would be considered a redundancy. Hatim calls this point the 'threshold of termination'. His view that the text/discourse would be 'incomplete' before it reached the threshold of termination does not necessarily apply to literary discourses in which redundancy, particularly stylistically acceptable redundancy, assumes a considerably functional role. Hatim's abundant and scholarly contributions to discourse analysis are of paramount importance in the training of translators and interpreters and in designing translation and interpretation syllabi. His text-typological theory, together with the complex terminology he employs, has made text/discourse analysis and processing very much akin to an intellectual exercise in mathematical calculation. Translations based on the text-typological model share one basic deficiency, that is, they are linguistically and semantically vulnerable. This vulne7ability is basically ascribed to the lack of specific guidelines along which translation is accomplished. In addition, all text-typologies are methodologically descriptive in the sense that they superfluously elaborate on methods of discoursal analysis with practically no insinuation of how a text/discourse is to be translated. Determining the type of text/discourse and its relevant specifications is not sufficient to render it in another language. 92
What matters more is the ways and means of achieving a reliable translation. The text-typological model is certainly of enormous help in discourse analysis. THE HERMENEUTIC MODEL Interpretive translation is based on the view that translation is not an interlingual or intercultural operation but is genuinely a purely textual activity. This view virtually owes it existence to the recent contributions in poetics and text-linguistics. The text/discourse analysis model suggests that the source text, co-text, and context be comprehensively envisioned and delineated. This means that the translator is expected to consider the entire communicative situation and, consequently, analyse its constituent elements. To achieve this, he will have to draw upon comparative grammar, comparative culture, socio-linguistics, stylistics, and literary criticism. The text/discourse analysis model apparently tries to effect a reconciliation, or at least a balance, between existing translation models. But this model fails to resolve the basic interpretive issue, particulary where literary translation is involved. The problem with literary translation lies in the relative undefinability , unidentifiability and indertminancy of its relevant pragmatic values. It is over this specific issue that translation theorists and translation practitioners widely disagree. Nevertheless, one should not underestimate the text/discourse analysis model which views the text as a communicative event set in a labyrinth 93
- Page 53 and 54: Messages are linguistically set to
- Page 55 and 56: p192) In immediate interpersonal co
- Page 57 and 58: concerning the communication situat
- Page 59 and 60: level of the individual sentence? B
- Page 61 and 62: In Europe, the linguistic analysis
- Page 63 and 64: demarcation lines between a sentenc
- Page 65 and 66: conditioned by the author's state o
- Page 67 and 68: elevant issues encountered in text-
- Page 69 and 70: features or goals with other texts
- Page 71 and 72: the source text, a step which comes
- Page 73 and 74: and confusing to obscure these diff
- Page 75 and 76: Translation is a relational concept
- Page 77 and 78: other replacement except what gramm
- Page 79 and 80: intersemiotic - springs from and po
- Page 81 and 82: the grammars of both SL and TL text
- Page 83 and 84: unbridgeable. Strategies to bridge
- Page 85 and 86: Moreover, the ability of both child
- Page 87 and 88: he understands the cultural pattern
- Page 89 and 90: to translation is unilaterally mean
- Page 91 and 92: to be considered translations? Is a
- Page 93 and 94: purposes. The transfer operation fo
- Page 95 and 96: In political discourses, however, p
- Page 97 and 98: language. Translations of medical,
- Page 99 and 100: are pragmatically a single text but
- Page 101 and 102: and 'relations' in terms of non-eva
- Page 103: dependent layers of pragmatic, semi
- Page 107 and 108: (texte) is open, mobile, vibrating
- Page 109 and 110: Post-war linguists shifted their fo
- Page 111 and 112: personalities. He attributed this c
- Page 113 and 114: is interpretable form its language,
- Page 115 and 116: potential' of the source text be pr
- Page 117 and 118: Hatim's arbitrary distinction betwe
- Page 119 and 120: accessory meaning structures. Oblig
- Page 121 and 122: semantics and the speech act theory
- Page 123 and 124: Premised on a rigorous committment
- Page 125 and 126: implemented, will help him achieve
- Page 127 and 128: etween the translator as TL text-or
- Page 129 and 130: The rhetorical model sets out to re
- Page 131 and 132: SL text will have to be dismantled
- Page 133 and 134: consists of two words: 'istaktabtuh
- Page 135 and 136: The question of tense, which marks
- Page 137 and 138: B. SYNTACTIC CORRESPONDENCE Anyone
- Page 139 and 140: specific clause type in the recepto
- Page 141 and 142: lexical items in any language devel
- Page 143 and 144: The translator's exhaustive and pai
- Page 145 and 146: this is achieved, semantic equivale
- Page 147 and 148: agreement, and the verb/adverb prox
- Page 149 and 150: object. If, in English, the adverb
- Page 151 and 152: extracted from the text-supplied (l
- Page 153 and 154: identifiable in terms of its contri
What matters more is the ways and means <strong>of</strong> achieving a reliable<br />
translation. The text-typological model is certainly <strong>of</strong> enormous help<br />
in discourse analysis.<br />
THE HERMENEUTIC MODEL<br />
Interpretive translation is based on the view that translation is<br />
not an interlingual or intercultural operation but is genuinely a<br />
purely textual activity. This view virtually owes it existence to the<br />
recent contributions in poetics and text-linguistics. The<br />
text/discourse analysis model suggests that the source text, co-text,<br />
and context be comprehensively envisioned and delineated. This means<br />
that the translator is expected to consider the entire communicative<br />
situation and, consequently, analyse its constituent elements. To<br />
achieve this, he will have to draw upon comparative grammar,<br />
comparative culture, socio-linguistics, stylistics, and literary<br />
criticism. The text/discourse analysis model apparently tries to<br />
effect a reconciliation, or at least a balance, between existing<br />
translation models. But this model fails to resolve the basic<br />
interpretive issue, particulary where literary translation is<br />
involved. The problem with literary translation lies in the relative<br />
undefinability , unidentifiability and indertminancy <strong>of</strong> its relevant<br />
pragmatic values. It is over this specific issue that translation<br />
theorists and translation practitioners widely disagree.<br />
Nevertheless, one should not underestimate the text/discourse analysis<br />
model which views the text as a communicative event set in a labyrinth<br />
93
Change language