Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
misrepresentation of his message. The SL text may, consequently, . enhance or lower the creative status and professional prestige of its author. THE ROLE OF THE TRANSLATOR The role of the translator in relation to the source message sender, the message, and the target message recipient is far more complex and requires a thorough delineation. This relationship is shown in the following pattern of interation: SL sender Message-Translator TL recipient The author of the source text triggers the message which is immediately picked up and decoded by the translator who refers it to its original sender before recoding it for his TL recipient. The translator plays the mediator between the SL text author and the TL text recipient. But through his mediation, the translator's role assumes a peculiar duality. He is both receiver and sender; reader and author; decoder and encoder. He receives the original message, deconstructs it, interprets it, and finally reconstructs it in a second language. The translated text is exclusively and indisputably his own individual creation; hence he is the TL text-originator. Equivalence between SL and TL texts must be reached since both SL and TL readerships are necessarily unidentical. The basic difference 114
etween the translator as TL text-originator and the original text author is that the former premises his text on someone else's, already in existence, while the latter creates his text from the void, ie. a text that had no existence prior to it. The translator, however, occupies a pivotal position in the interaction network which engages the triad involved in the entire translation situation. The translator's control over the interaction pattern, and thereby over the structure of the triadic relationship, is founded in his ability to translate selectively. He may translate all that he finds in the original text with as great fidelity as he can muster, or he may refrain from doing so. His monolingual readership may be unable to ascertain the difference between SL and TL texts unless he oversteps rather wide bounds. If, on the other hand, the translator faithfully echoes the SL text there is every reason to believe that he may be tyrannized by the source language, or pressurized by bilingual considerations. Some translators assume a neutral self-image which clearly manifests itself particularly when bilingualism and biculturalism are relatively well-balanced. If, on the other hand, the translator did not act as a 'faithful echo' to the SL text author, what would we expect of him? He would, in all likelihood, orient himself toward his reader as if he were echoing the SL author with utmost fidelity; a stance characterized by apparent personal detachment from the content of his translation. The translator would, then, manipulate the communicative content of the translated message in the direction of moderation and rationality, thus achieving what Nida calls 'dynamic equivalence'. 115
- 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 and 122: semantics and the speech act theory
- Page 123 and 124: Premised on a rigorous committment
- Page 125: implemented, will help him achieve
- 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
- Page 173 and 174: one to whom the message is addresse
- Page 175 and 176: flies and horse-flies fill the air
etween the translator as TL text-originator and the original text<br />
author is that the former premises his text on someone else's, already<br />
in existence, while the latter creates his text from the void, ie. a<br />
text that had no existence prior to it.<br />
The translator, however, occupies a pivotal position in the<br />
interaction network which engages the triad involved in the entire<br />
translation situation. The translator's control over the interaction<br />
pattern, and thereby over the structure <strong>of</strong> the triadic relationship, is<br />
founded in his ability to translate selectively. He may translate all<br />
that he finds in the original text with as great fidelity as he can<br />
muster, or he may refrain from doing so. His monolingual readership<br />
may be unable to ascertain the difference between SL and TL texts<br />
unless he oversteps rather wide bounds. If, on the other hand, the<br />
translator faithfully echoes the SL text there is every reason to<br />
believe that he may be tyrannized by the source language, or<br />
pressurized by bilingual considerations. Some translators assume a<br />
neutral self-image which clearly manifests itself particularly when<br />
bilingualism and biculturalism are relatively well-balanced. If, on<br />
the other hand, the translator did not act as a 'faithful echo' to the<br />
SL text author, what would we expect <strong>of</strong> him? He would, in all<br />
likelihood, orient himself toward his reader as if he were echoing the<br />
SL author with utmost fidelity; a stance characterized by apparent<br />
personal detachment from the content <strong>of</strong> his translation. The<br />
translator would, then, manipulate the communicative content <strong>of</strong> the<br />
translated message in the direction <strong>of</strong> moderation and rationality, thus<br />
achieving what Nida calls 'dynamic equivalence'.<br />
115
Change language