Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
etween SL and TL texts is ordinarily non-achievable. Quite explicitly, Jakobson asserts that, "in interlingual translation there is ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units, while messages may serve as adequate interpretations of alien code-units or messages." Jakobson draws no obvious distinctions between linguist, interpreter, and/or translator. He assumes that the linguist, upon the receipt of a verbal message, interprets it; ie. translates its signs into other signs of the same system (intralingual translation), or into signs of another system (interlingual translation). Jakobson further adds that "widespread practice of interlingual communication, particularly translating activities, must be kept under constant scrutiny by linguistic science." (1959, p234) Catford's and Jakobson's translation types are both source-oriented. They have their grounding in linguistic science. But while Catford holds that no source data are not untranslatable, Jakobson regards ineffability or untranslatability as applicable only to poetry. "Poetry, by definition, is untranslatable. Only creative transposition is possible: either intralingual transposition from one poetic shape into another, or interlingual transposition from one language into another, or finally intersemiotic transposition from one system of signs into another, eg. from verbal art into music, dance, cinema, or painting." (ibid, p238) Linguists, translation theorists, and behavioural scientists have attempted to investigate the translation phenomenon from various perspectives. Divergences of approaches emerged from the primary assumption that translation - whether intralingual, interlingual, or 66
intersemiotic - springs from and pools into language, which is an extremely complex and fast-growing human activity, The theory- practice dichotomy constitutes yet another problem with which translation theorists and practitioners are confronted. The problem is summarized in a couple of queries: which should assume first priority, theory or practice? Should we, at the very outset, look into the diverse corpus of translation texts before we formulate a theory according to which texts are to be translated? Or should we start off by formulating a theory of translation and see how far it is applicable to various types of translatable texts? Joseph Graham ( Translation Spectrum (ed.) M G Rose, 1981, pp23- 24) maintains that "the problem of translation is theoretical in the strict sense, being a problem in and of theory, not just the right theory but the right kind of theory, which turns out to be the only real kind. The logical consequence would then be a methodological p p-esv. t-1." 4nAk deference, since any substantial theory of translation presumes, if it does not actually assume, some formal inquiry concerning the general principles of accomplishment, the very principles which define an object and specify a method of study." Likewise, Katz, ( Meaning and Translation : ed. by F Guenthner and M Guenthner-Reutter, 1978, p191) explicitly states that, "The standard approach to the fundamental principles of a theory involves familiar steps of successive abstraction from empirical generalizations". Katz adopts a philosophy of scepticism in his endeavour to formulate a semantic theory of natural languages. 67
- 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 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: other replacement except what gramm
- 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 and 126: implemented, will help him achieve
- Page 127 and 128: etween the translator as TL text-or
etween SL and TL texts is ordinarily non-achievable. Quite<br />
explicitly, Jakobson asserts that, "in interlingual translation there<br />
is ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units, while messages<br />
may serve as adequate interpretations <strong>of</strong> alien code-units or messages."<br />
Jakobson draws no obvious distinctions between linguist, interpreter,<br />
and/or translator. He assumes that the linguist, upon the receipt <strong>of</strong> a<br />
verbal message, interprets it; ie. translates its signs into other<br />
signs <strong>of</strong> the same system (intralingual translation), or into signs <strong>of</strong><br />
another system (interlingual translation). Jakobson further adds that<br />
"widespread practice <strong>of</strong> interlingual communication, particularly<br />
translating activities, must be kept under constant scrutiny by<br />
linguistic science." (1959, p234) Catford's and Jakobson's<br />
translation types are both source-oriented. They have their grounding<br />
in linguistic science. But while Catford holds that no source data are<br />
not untranslatable, Jakobson regards ineffability or untranslatability<br />
as applicable only to poetry. "Poetry, by definition, is<br />
untranslatable. Only creative transposition is possible: either<br />
intralingual transposition from one poetic shape into another, or<br />
interlingual transposition from one language into another, or finally<br />
intersemiotic transposition from one system <strong>of</strong> signs into another, eg.<br />
from verbal art into music, dance, cinema, or painting." (ibid, p238)<br />
Linguists, translation theorists, and behavioural scientists have<br />
attempted to investigate the translation phenomenon from various<br />
perspectives. Divergences <strong>of</strong> approaches emerged from the primary<br />
assumption that translation - whether intralingual, interlingual, or<br />
66
Change language