Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
sentences which are arbitrarily grammatically and syntactically interrelated. Each langauge has its own grammatical and syntactic structure. These structures are governed by arbitrary norms and conventions. The grammatical systematization, which is predominantly based on logical considerations, bestows upon the interrelated constituents of a sentence certain, specific, recognizable, and identifiable semantic meaning. Therefore, meaning is a grammar- dependent construct. Since translation and interpretation are basically 'semantic' concepts (Halliday, 1985) no model for translation quality assessment can be conceived nor implemented outside the domain of grammar. According to the concept of 'semantic shifts' upon which the rhetorical model is based, the text can be postulated as a semantic multi-layered linguistic entity in the sense that textemic structural elements influence and determine textual meaning. The network of meanings comprise (1) obligatory meaning; (2) extended meaning; and (3) accessory meaning. It is through the activation of the grammatical relationships holding between the micro-semantic structures of this network, and the uni-directional movement of the extended and accessory meaning towards the explication and subsequently, amplification of the obligatory meaning, that the macro-semantic entity of the text is identifiable. The difficulties which the translator, by virtue of his original task, is expected to confront exist mainly in how to disintegrate the semantic superstructure into infrastructural semes and dissociate the interrelated meanings one from the other. Once 132
this is achieved, semantic equivalence between SL and TL texts will not be far from being achieved. It may not be impertinent, at this particular juncture, to deal at length with each type of meaning and how the shifting process actually takes place. A. OBLIGATORY MEANING As its name suggests, obligatory meaning is self- explanatory. It is the type of meaning which the source highlights and the translator, in turn, is committed to convey in the receptor language. Though variably labelled, eg. referential (Nida, 1964)j, conceptual (Leech, 1974) or scientific (Bloomfield, 1933), obligatory meaning remains invariably the only constant in any translation theory. The layer of obligatory meaning is at its thickest in non-literary texts, eg. a science book, a medical report, a business letter, a legal document, an instructions manual ... etc. Here the form in which the content is embedded is likely to be subsidiary, the emphasis being lavished on the propositional content of he message. Structural inconsistencies and grammatical irregularities will not dramatically obstruct the course of obligatory meaning. The extractability of the obligatory meaning depends solely on the translator's prior acquaintance with and, subsequently, identification of the technical and scientific terminology involved in the text. His problem is primarily a terminological one. Once the technical terms are pinpointed, it 133
- 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 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: The translator's exhaustive and pai
- 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
- Page 177 and 178: The same meaning is further develop
- Page 179 and 180: emember a friend of my son's", the
- Page 181 and 182: The same meaning is extended in the
- Page 183 and 184: immediately answered. The reader is
- Page 185 and 186: incident known in Islamic history a
- Page 187 and 188: STATEMENT OF QUALITY As I have said
- Page 189 and 190: came, by God, in droves" is rather
- Page 191 and 192: that he could, with relative ease a
- Page 193 and 194: emphatic, constitutes a juxtapositi
sentences which are arbitrarily grammatically and syntactically<br />
interrelated. Each langauge has its own grammatical and syntactic<br />
structure. These structures are governed by arbitrary norms and<br />
conventions. The grammatical systematization, which is predominantly<br />
based on logical considerations, bestows upon the interrelated<br />
constituents <strong>of</strong> a sentence certain, specific, recognizable, and<br />
identifiable semantic meaning. Therefore, meaning is a grammar-<br />
dependent construct. Since translation and interpretation are<br />
basically 'semantic' concepts (Halliday, 1985) no model for translation<br />
quality assessment can be conceived nor implemented outside the domain<br />
<strong>of</strong> grammar.<br />
According to the concept <strong>of</strong> 'semantic shifts' upon which the<br />
rhetorical model is based, the text can be postulated as a semantic<br />
multi-layered linguistic entity in the sense that textemic structural<br />
elements influence and determine textual meaning. The network <strong>of</strong><br />
meanings comprise (1) obligatory meaning; (2) extended meaning; and (3)<br />
accessory meaning. It is through the activation <strong>of</strong> the grammatical<br />
relationships holding between the micro-semantic structures <strong>of</strong> this<br />
network, and the uni-directional movement <strong>of</strong> the extended and accessory<br />
meaning towards the explication and subsequently, amplification <strong>of</strong> the<br />
obligatory meaning, that the macro-semantic entity <strong>of</strong> the text is<br />
identifiable. The difficulties which the translator, by virtue <strong>of</strong> his<br />
original task, is expected to confront exist mainly in how to<br />
disintegrate the semantic superstructure into infrastructural semes<br />
and dissociate the interrelated meanings one from the other. Once<br />
132
Change language