Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
signs into another, i.e. from verbal art into music, dance, cinema or painting." Kelly (1979, p132) maintains that "Dynamic equivalence seeks for the word of the source text a unit equivalent in communicative effect". Kelly thus confines the concept of 'translation unit' to the word which is the minimal unit of translation. We do not translate word by word simply because languages differ with regard to lexes. To be adequately translated the source text must be perceived in its entirety. Perception is a fundamental requisite for dynamic equivalence. "Modulation and adaptation" says Nida, "are adjustments to language experience". (1964, p239) The notion of communicative function is also held by Catford who states that: "For translation to occur, then both source and target texts must be relatable to the functionally relevant features of the situation,.... which are functionally relevant to the communicative function of the text in that situation." (1965, p94) What is functionally relevant, in this sense, is arguable. Catford proposes that the co-text will provide the translator with information which will help him to decide on what features can be considered as functionally relevant to the text in situation. Equivalence, a much used and abused term in Translation Studies, does not mean 'sameness' or 'synonymy', for any two texts (ST and TT) 16
in two different languages cannot be absolutely identical in terms of grammar, lexis or meaning. Equivalence in translation is a major terminological ambiguity. The concept of equivalence, as a philosophical construct, is sometimes vague, misleading and, more often than not, subject to various interpretations. Van den Broeck (1978, pp32-33) holds that "the properties of a strict equivalence relationship (symmetry, transitivity, reflectivity) do not apply to the translation relationship". Snell-Hornby dubs equivalence as merely fictitious and illusory. Structuralists and post-structuralists, as we shall see later, disavowedly reject equivalence and the concept of translation altogether. This made Neubert look to equivalence as the 'missing link' between translation as a process and translation as a product. While van den Broeck insists that the precise definition of equivalence in mathematics and exact sciences is a serious obstacle to its use in Translation Studies, Neubert stresses the need for a theory of equivalence relations. Translation cannot be precisely equated with, or even compared to, mathematics for while mathematics deals with figures and equations of quantitative properties translation operates through lexical structures of semantically and stylistically qualitative attributes. In a stimulating article on "Text-bound Translation" (see 'Translation Theory and its Implementation in the Teaching of Translating and Interpreting', (ed) W Wilss and G Thome, 1984, pp61- 17
- Page 1 and 2: TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT AN A
- Page 3 and 4: Lexical Correspondence. 128 Identif
- Page 5 and 6: ABSTRACT Translation quality assess
- Page 7 and 8: texts are identified before assessm
- Page 9 and 10: INTRODUCTION This thesis focuses on
- Page 11 and 12: components. However, more important
- Page 13 and 14: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS CHAPTER
- Page 15 and 16: translation quality assessment? Wor
- Page 17 and 18: elease Bayzantine prisoners in exch
- Page 19 and 20: should have a perfect knowledge of
- Page 21 and 22: translation was eventually cleared.
- Page 23 and 24: (2) The style and manner of writing
- Page 25 and 26: TL texts, and finally bring the rec
- Page 27: (3) Stylistic equivalence, where th
- Page 31 and 32: Neubert goes on to discuss the ways
- Page 33 and 34: Lotman (1976, pp153-96) argues that
- Page 35 and 36: (a) "the concept of translation equ
- Page 37 and 38: (structural) equivalences provided
- Page 39 and 40: equivalence obtaining between TT an
- Page 41 and 42: in various ways according to the ma
- Page 43 and 44: Roman Jakobson adds another three f
- Page 45 and 46: The communicative approach, of whic
- Page 47 and 48: claims, "free from the formal conta
- Page 49 and 50: to a certain system, to another sem
- Page 51 and 52: (3) RECEPTORS The author of a text
- Page 53 and 54: Messages are linguistically set to
- Page 55 and 56: p192) In immediate interpersonal co
- Page 57 and 58: concerning the communication situat
- Page 59 and 60: level of the individual sentence? B
- Page 61 and 62: In Europe, the linguistic analysis
- Page 63 and 64: demarcation lines between a sentenc
- Page 65 and 66: conditioned by the author's state o
- Page 67 and 68: elevant issues encountered in text-
- 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
signs into another, i.e. from verbal art into music, dance, cinema or<br />
painting."<br />
Kelly (1979, p132) maintains that "Dynamic equivalence seeks for<br />
the word <strong>of</strong> the source text a unit equivalent in communicative effect".<br />
Kelly thus confines the concept <strong>of</strong> 'translation unit' to the word which<br />
is the minimal unit <strong>of</strong> translation. We do not translate word by word<br />
simply because languages differ with regard to lexes. To be adequately<br />
translated the source text must be perceived in its entirety.<br />
Perception is a fundamental requisite for dynamic equivalence.<br />
"Modulation and adaptation" says Nida, "are adjustments to language<br />
experience". (1964, p239) The notion <strong>of</strong> communicative function is<br />
also held by Catford who states that:<br />
"For translation to occur, then both source and target texts<br />
must be relatable to the functionally relevant features <strong>of</strong> the<br />
situation,.... which are functionally relevant to the<br />
communicative function <strong>of</strong> the text in that situation." (1965,<br />
p94)<br />
What is functionally relevant, in this sense, is arguable. Catford<br />
proposes that the co-text will provide the translator with information<br />
which will help him to decide on what features can be considered as<br />
functionally relevant to the text in situation.<br />
Equivalence, a much used and abused term in Translation Studies,<br />
does not mean 'sameness' or 'synonymy', for any two texts (ST and TT)<br />
16
Change language