Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Malinowski's classification of language functions is based on anthropological considerations. As an anthropologist, he was interested in practical or pragmatic uses of language on the one hand, which he further subdivided into active and narrative, and ritual or magical uses of language associated with ceremonial and religious activities, on the other. Despite the various classifications of langauge functions, one cannot arbitrarily segment a specific instance of natural language into un-related, clear-cut meanings. The experiential, referential, ideational and textual functions of language are inextricably intersewn into the fabric of discourse so much so that it becomes hardly possible to dissociate the one from the other. To understand a source message and, subsequently, communicate it into another language, one must conceive it as a semantic whole locatable in its extralinguistic context. Various approaches to translation diverge as to the shift of focus. The linguistic approach, which is best illustrated in the work of Catford (1965) focuses on the differences.in linguistic structure between the source and target language. It involves a series of rules of formal correspondence based on contrastive linguistics. As such, they rely on surface structures and pay no heed to the underlying semantic relationships. Unless the functions of formal correspondences are clearly understood, translations are bound to shrink into mere mechanical re-transcriptions. Besides, Catford's approach to translation overlooks the communicative aspect of discourse. 32
The communicative approach, of which Nida, Wilss, and Rose are notable exemplaries, emphasizes the communicative aspect of discourse. The focus is shifted to the extent to which the meaning of the source text is transmitted to the receptors in a form that they can understand and react to. The recaptor's role in communication is so vital that it is made the end-result of the process of translation. In their most recent book, Nida and de Waard (1986, pp11-19) enumerate as many as eight principal elements involved in communication: (1) source; (2) message; (3) receptors; (4) setting; (5) code; (6) sense channel; (7) instrument channel; and (8) noise. We will deal, in brief, with these elements. Heavy stress will be placed on more prominent ones. (1) SOURCE: By 'source' Nida and de Waard mean the author, co-author, or the authorial team who created the text. This concept of 'source' emerged principally from Nida's preoccupation with Bible translating, since the extant translations of the Bible are based on prior translations by different hands in different languages. Source has a much wider perspective. It can relate to the text as a closed and finalized object. It can also apply to the language in which the text is originally written. 33
- 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 and 28: (3) Stylistic equivalence, where th
- Page 29 and 30: in two different languages cannot b
- 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: Roman Jakobson adds another three f
- 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
- 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
Malinowski's classification <strong>of</strong> language functions is based on<br />
anthropological considerations. As an anthropologist, he was<br />
interested in practical or pragmatic uses <strong>of</strong> language on the one hand,<br />
which he further subdivided into active and narrative, and ritual or<br />
magical uses <strong>of</strong> language associated with ceremonial and religious<br />
activities, on the other.<br />
Despite the various classifications <strong>of</strong> langauge functions, one<br />
cannot arbitrarily segment a specific instance <strong>of</strong> natural language into<br />
un-related, clear-cut meanings. The experiential, referential,<br />
ideational and textual functions <strong>of</strong> language are inextricably intersewn<br />
into the fabric <strong>of</strong> discourse so much so that it becomes hardly possible<br />
to dissociate the one from the other. To understand a source message<br />
and, subsequently, communicate it into another language, one must<br />
conceive it as a semantic whole locatable in its extralinguistic<br />
context.<br />
Various approaches to translation diverge as to the shift <strong>of</strong> focus.<br />
The linguistic approach, which is best illustrated in the work <strong>of</strong><br />
Catford (1965) focuses on the differences.in linguistic structure<br />
between the source and target language. It involves a series <strong>of</strong> rules<br />
<strong>of</strong> formal correspondence based on contrastive linguistics. As such,<br />
they rely on surface structures and pay no heed to the underlying<br />
semantic relationships. Unless the functions <strong>of</strong> formal correspondences<br />
are clearly understood, translations are bound to shrink into mere<br />
mechanical re-transcriptions. Besides, Catford's approach to<br />
translation overlooks the communicative aspect <strong>of</strong> discourse.<br />
32