Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
communicate certain intended meaning or to produce certain intended effects, is both rhetorical and audience-oriented. Semioticians and structuralists do not attempt to read the text in the sense of interpreting it or assigning it meaning, but seek to analyse its codes and conventions that make it possibly 'readable'. Once 'readable', the text becomes easily 'describable'. The structuralist's description of a text is more a simulacrum than a copy whose aim is to make the text 'intelligible'. Structuralism and semiotics meet hermeneutics where codes and conventions are deployed in the text by authors and readers respectively. Positive (traditional) hermeneutics seeks to arrive at an understanding of a human mind as that mind manifests or manifested itself in written texts in an attempt to rid interpretation of subjectivist or romantic overtones and establish the notion of 'universally valid interpretation'. Modern (negative) hermeneutics, on the other hand, rejects the notion of 'universally valid interpretation' in favour of Nietzchian philosophy which states that "whatever exists . . is again and again reinterpreted to new ends, taken over, transformed; all events in the organic world are a subduing, a becoming master and all subduing and becoming master involves a fresh interpretation, an adaptation through which any previous 'meaning' and 'purpose' are necessarily obscure(1. or even obliterated". (see Edward Said: 'Beginnings: Intention and Method', 1975, p175) 110
Premised on a rigorous committment to logical or obligatory meaning, our model for textual analysis and, subsequently, translation quality assessment, is certainly non-structuralist, non-hermeneutic but evidently rhetorical, wherein all interlocked layers of meanings are dismantled, shuffled and reshuffled before arriving at the textual overall meaning. 111
- 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 and 120: accessory meaning structures. Oblig
- Page 121: semantics and the speech act theory
- 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
- Page 171 and 172: perceived. Only extensions of the o
Premised on a rigorous committment to logical or obligatory<br />
meaning, our model for textual analysis and, subsequently, translation<br />
quality assessment, is certainly non-structuralist, non-hermeneutic<br />
but evidently rhetorical, wherein all interlocked layers <strong>of</strong> meanings<br />
are dismantled, shuffled and reshuffled before arriving at the textual<br />
overall meaning.<br />
111
Change language