Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
hetorical model, against which translation quality could be assessed. The text's network of meanings can be boiled down to three distinct layers: (1) Obligatory Meanings: They are the control centres which determine and regulate the flow of information throughout the text. They help evolve and up-grade the meaning of the text beyond the 'informativity level'. (2) Extended Meanings: They help dismantle, verify and project (3) obligatory meanings through the use of rhetorical devices. Accessory Meanings: They derive mainly from linguistic aesthetics (figurative and stylistic devices). They help in the organization and formatting of textual material. It is worth noting that in literary texts, the density of obligatory meaning is at its lowest, whereas the density , of extended and accessory meanings is at its highest. Non-literary texts, on the other hand, abound in obligatory meaning structures and have practically a tiny room for extended or accessory meaning structures. In hybrid or fuzzy texts, the distribution of meanings depend largely on the nature and scope of the text. In the non-literary text, the obligatory meaning structures abundantly occur giving practically no room for either extended or 106
accessory meaning structures. Obligatory meaning structures operate and evolve within the context which is determined by the type and topic of the text which ultimately projects the overall textual meaning. A comparative view of both literary and non-literary texts reveals that in the former, extended and accessory meaning structures abound whereas obligatory meaning structures are extremely minimized. On the contrary, in the latter text obligatory meaning structures outnumber both extended and accessory meaning structures which serve only as linkage devices holding the text's overall meaning together. In hybrid or fuzzy texts extended and accessory meaning structures are of limited number and scope. All meaning structures operate and interact within the framework of the context, projecting the text's overall meaning. From the foregoing discussion, we conclude that the structuring and processing of the text (literary, non-literary or hybrid) are constrained and conditioned by a continued process of shifting which involves the three inter-related, interactive and inter-dependent layers of meaning: obligatory, extended, and accessory. Skilful shifting of extended and accessory meaning structures, which are certainly more maneuverable than obligatory or logical meaning structures, crystallizes the overall meaning of the text. On the other hand, unskillful shifting of non-logical meaning structures 107
- 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 and 104: dependent layers of pragmatic, semi
- Page 105 and 106: What matters more is the ways and m
- 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: Hatim's arbitrary distinction betwe
- 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
- Page 155 and 156: In a literary text, the translator
- Page 157 and 158: as impressive or forceful as it is
- Page 159 and 160: The rhetorical model is primarily a
- Page 161 and 162: apprehension, repulsiveness, or dis
- Page 163 and 164: (5) Once completed, leave the trans
- Page 165 and 166: literary, literary, and hybrid or f
- Page 167 and 168: I have mentioned earlier that textu
accessory meaning structures. Obligatory meaning structures operate<br />
and evolve within the context which is determined by the type and topic<br />
<strong>of</strong> the text which ultimately projects the overall textual meaning.<br />
A comparative view <strong>of</strong> both literary and non-literary texts reveals<br />
that in the former, extended and accessory meaning structures abound<br />
whereas obligatory meaning structures are extremely minimized. On the<br />
contrary, in the latter text obligatory meaning structures outnumber<br />
both extended and accessory meaning structures which serve only as<br />
linkage devices holding the text's overall meaning together.<br />
In hybrid or fuzzy texts extended and accessory meaning structures<br />
are <strong>of</strong> limited number and scope. All meaning structures operate and<br />
interact within the framework <strong>of</strong> the context, projecting the text's<br />
overall meaning.<br />
From the foregoing discussion, we conclude that the structuring<br />
and processing <strong>of</strong> the text (literary, non-literary or hybrid) are<br />
constrained and conditioned by a continued process <strong>of</strong> shifting which<br />
involves the three inter-related, interactive and inter-dependent<br />
layers <strong>of</strong> meaning: obligatory, extended, and accessory. Skilful<br />
shifting <strong>of</strong> extended and accessory meaning structures, which are<br />
certainly more maneuverable than obligatory or logical meaning<br />
structures, crystallizes the overall meaning <strong>of</strong> the text. On the<br />
other hand, unskillful shifting <strong>of</strong> non-logical meaning structures<br />
107
Change language