Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
particularly in literary texts, will overshadow the text's overall meaning. The rhetorical model, which is based on the concept of meaning shifts, is traceable in ancient Greek and Arabic rhetoric. I have developed and upgraded this model to serve the ultimate purpose of translation quality assessment. The rhetorical model provides more scope for text-producer, text-translator, and text-receiver to manoeuver with inter-related, interactive and inter-dependent meanings into the semantic goal of the text in order to finally achieve interpersonal communication. Approaches which have been set up to interpret texts are, unmistakably, oriented to reader, or more generally, to audience. Therefore, the notions of reader and audience, with their theoretical and practical implications, have been examined in the widest perspective possible. The interrelated disciplines of linguistics and literary criticism are equally concerned with self-reflectiveness as observable in the interaction between the observed (text) and the observer (reader). Generative grammar, for instance, with its emphasis on competence and performance, displaces Sausserean linguistics which primarily emphasized the semantic system of language. Chomskyan linguistics, later on, was more concerned about the infinite number of utterancLs (parole) grammatically acceptable by the native speakers of a langauge than the description of the system of relations that constitute a given language (langue). Generative 108
semantics and the speech act theory take into account both the syntactic and phonological rules of sentence formation as well as the semantic and contextual rules that govern actual speech situations. In literary criticism, a parallel movement shifted focus from emphasis on the autonomy of the text itself to a re-recognition of the relevance of text to its relevant context, whether historical, cultural, ideological or psychoanalytic. In the same manner, Czech and French structuralism was challenged by semiotics and Derridean post-structuralism. Six varieties of audience-oriented criticism may be distinguished: rhetorical, semiotic and structuralist, phenomenolgical, subjective and psychoanalytic, sociological and historical, and hermeneutic. What is relevant to our model for translation quality assessment is the rhetorical variety of literary criticism. Jakobsen's model of the text as a form of communication is shared by the rhetorical and semiotic-structuralist varieties of literary criticism. According to this model, the author and the reader of a text are related to each other as the sender and receiver of a message. The transmission and reception of any message depend on the presence of one or more shared codes of communication between the sender and receiver. Translating, therefore, consists of a process of decoding what has been encoded in the SL text before recoding it in the TL text. Any criticism which conceives of the text as a message to be decoded, and seeks to study the means whereby authors attempt to 109
- 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 and 118: Hatim's arbitrary distinction betwe
- Page 119: accessory meaning structures. Oblig
- 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
- Page 169 and 170: The second stanza opens with a nega
semantics and the speech act theory take into account both the<br />
syntactic and phonological rules <strong>of</strong> sentence formation as well as the<br />
semantic and contextual rules that govern actual speech situations.<br />
In literary criticism, a parallel movement shifted focus from<br />
emphasis on the autonomy <strong>of</strong> the text itself to a re-recognition <strong>of</strong> the<br />
relevance <strong>of</strong> text to its relevant context, whether historical,<br />
cultural, ideological or psychoanalytic. In the same manner, Czech<br />
and French structuralism was challenged by semiotics and Derridean<br />
post-structuralism. Six varieties <strong>of</strong> audience-oriented criticism may<br />
be distinguished: rhetorical, semiotic and structuralist,<br />
phenomenolgical, subjective and psychoanalytic, sociological and<br />
historical, and hermeneutic. What is relevant to our model for<br />
translation quality assessment is the rhetorical variety <strong>of</strong> literary<br />
criticism.<br />
Jakobsen's model <strong>of</strong> the text as a form <strong>of</strong> communication is shared<br />
by the rhetorical and semiotic-structuralist varieties <strong>of</strong> literary<br />
criticism. According to this model, the author and the reader <strong>of</strong> a<br />
text are related to each other as the sender and receiver <strong>of</strong> a<br />
message. The transmission and reception <strong>of</strong> any message depend on the<br />
presence <strong>of</strong> one or more shared codes <strong>of</strong> communication between the<br />
sender and receiver. Translating, therefore, consists <strong>of</strong> a process <strong>of</strong><br />
decoding what has been encoded in the SL text before recoding it in<br />
the TL text. Any criticism which conceives <strong>of</strong> the text as a message to<br />
be decoded, and seeks to study the means whereby authors attempt to<br />
109