Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
it against the imaginary schema one has made of the source text. Such a schema is non-norm-governable since it is conjured up by the translation assessor's insight, intuition, and cultural background. Comparison between the translated version and the original depends mainly on one criterion, that is, equivalence on the linguistic, communicative, and pragmatic level. Linguistic equivalence can be achieved through grammatical, syntactic, and lexical correspondence. Communicative equivalence relates to the cross-cultural aspects of the message under communication. The socio-cultural context in which the source message is embedded should be candidly carried over into the receptor text. Pragmatic equivalence is achieved when the source's intentions are sufficiently explicated in the translated version. In both translation and translation quality assessment attention should be focused on the obligatory meaning which should remain intact. Extended and accessory meanings, however, can be altered or re-distributed to preserve the source's stylistic appeal and emotional impact. To sum up, the rhetorical model against which the original and the translation texts are to be compared is based on a comprehensive concept of meaning which encompasses the three functions of language, namely, the pragmatic, semiotic and communicative. Though the concept of meaning is indivisibly wholistic it is classifiable into three interlocked layers which collectively constitute the meaning of text. This artificial categorization is mainly intended for pedagogical and analytical purposes with no further claim to authority or absolutism. The division of meaning into obligatory, extended, and accessory layers or levels is in assonance with our classification of texts into non- 152
literary, literary, and hybrid or fuzzy texts. This does not mean that non-literary texts do not incorporate literary or stylistic structures. Our text-typological hypothesis can be justified by the existence of an enormous corpus of texts. Moreover, each category of texts can be divided into various sub-categories. What we hope to achieve consists in the availability of a fairly accurate methodology according to which various semantic structures on the lexical, grammatical and stylistic levels can be identified. Then, a comparative analysis of the original and the translated texts is conducted to find out to what extent the translator has succeeded in transferring these semantic structures into the target text. This does not imply that the translator's task is confined to the semantic transfer operation. Not in the least; for his primary vocation is the communication of the source message to the receptor readership, a vocation which involves both the form and content of the message. In the following chapter, we will enter into an empirical stage in which we will compare between original and translated texts before we make any qualitative statements about translation. 153
- 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 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: (5) Once completed, leave the trans
- 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
- Page 195 and 196: fate, nor divert the pre-planned co
- Page 197 and 198: Rendering this line into English, t
- Page 199 and 200: In translating this line, the trans
- Page 201 and 202: and death, decision and indecision,
- Page 203 and 204: embedded, should be thinned so that
- Page 205 and 206: The linguistic tools the author uti
- Page 207 and 208: Some lexical mismatches are observa
- Page 209 and 210: closely without realizing that the
- Page 211 and 212: The two re-translations, put togeth
- Page 213 and 214: TEXT IV /hybrid) This text is a , f
literary, literary, and hybrid or fuzzy texts. This does not mean that<br />
non-literary texts do not incorporate literary or stylistic structures.<br />
Our text-typological hypothesis can be justified by the existence <strong>of</strong> an<br />
enormous corpus <strong>of</strong> texts. Moreover, each category <strong>of</strong> texts can be<br />
divided into various sub-categories. What we hope to achieve consists<br />
in the availability <strong>of</strong> a fairly accurate methodology according to which<br />
various semantic structures on the lexical, grammatical and stylistic<br />
levels can be identified. Then, a comparative analysis <strong>of</strong> the original<br />
and the translated texts is conducted to find out to what extent the<br />
translator has succeeded in transferring these semantic structures into<br />
the target text. This does not imply that the translator's task is<br />
confined to the semantic transfer operation. Not in the least; for<br />
his primary vocation is the communication <strong>of</strong> the source message to the<br />
receptor readership, a vocation which involves both the form and<br />
content <strong>of</strong> the message. In the following chapter, we will enter into<br />
an empirical stage in which we will compare between original and<br />
translated texts before we make any qualitative statements about<br />
translation.<br />
153
Change language