1 / 20

VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE

Lower Danube University Master’s in Translation and Interpretation Gala ţi 2011. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE. Author : Haralambie Alina Scientific coordinator : PhD. Croitoru Elena. Motto.

muncel
Download Presentation

VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lower Danube University Master’s in Translation and Interpretation Galaţi 2011 VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE Author: HaralambieAlina Scientific coordinator: PhD. Croitoru Elena

  2. Motto Do we really know how we translate or what we translate?...Are we to accept “naked ideas” as the means of crossing from one language to another?...Translators know they cross over but do not know by what sort of bridge. They often re-cross by a different bridge to check up again. Sometimes they fall over the parapet into limbo. (Firth, 1957:197)

  3. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE • translation studies: the contemporary theory of “partial communication”: communication does not transfer the total message the translating process does not transfer the totality of what is in the original • “the ideal of total equivalence is a chimera. Languages are different from each other; they are different in form having distinct codes and rules regulating the construction of grammatical stretches of language and these forms have different meanings.[...]There is no absolute synonymy between words in the same language, so why should anyone be surprised to discover a lack of synonymy between languages?” (Bell, 1991:6)

  4. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE • J.C. Catford (1965): • equivalence= textual interchangeability in a given situation- criticized by K. Reiss and Vermeer (1984): a translation is not interchangeable with its source text in a given situation; source texts and translations operate in different language communities. • “The information they convey may be felt and judged to be equivalent, and the situations they communicate in may be felt to be interculturally comparable (or equivalent), but they are not the same.” (A.L.Jakobsen)

  5. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE (continued) • S. Bassnett-McGuire (1991): • the interpretation of translation should be based on the comparison of the text’s “function” as original and as a translation. • Disadvantage: • her use of the term function is so broad that almost any deviation, addition, deletion could be labelled a “functional equivalent.” • it allows the replacement of much of the text, with all its particular resonance and associations, with something new and completely different, but which theoretically affects the reader the same way. (E. Gentzler, 1993:101)

  6. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE (continued) • Holmes (1974:78): • equivalence= preservation of the sound, the sense, the rhythm, the textual “material” and recreation of those specific sensation-sound, sense and association- despite inherent limitations in the TL (opposed to S. Bassnett-McGuire’s theory)

  7. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE (continued) • Van den Broeck (1978) : • redefines and recuperates “equivalence” for his own concept of “true understanding” of how one should regard literary translation. (Broeck, 1978:29) • In agreement with Lefevere (1975), Broeck (1978) considers that the original author’s intention and the function of the original text can be determined and translated so that the TT will be equivalent to the ST and function accordingly. A translation can only be complete if and when both the communicative value and the time-place-tradition elements if the ST have been replaced by their nearest possible equivalents in the TT(Lefevere, 1975:102; Broeck, 1978:39).

  8. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE (continued) • Neubert (1986): • the text has a kind of a “mosaic” quality, an elasticity that allows it to be translated into a variety of “relative” TTs. • introduces the term “translational relativity” in the reconstruction process, allowing for a “creative” process of transfer from the ST to the TT. This relativity derives from an inherent multiplicity of structural possibilities in the original (Neubert, 1986:97).

  9. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE (continued) • Toury (1980): • considers translation from the point of view of the target culture (TC) • sets forth a TT theory for translation, focussing not on a notion of equivalence as postulated requirements, but on the “actual relationships” between the ST and its “factual replacement” (Toury, 1980:39). • The following aspects of Toury’s theory have contributed to the development of translation theory: • The abandonment of one-to-one notions of correspondence and the possibility of literary/ linguistic equivalence • The involvement of the literary tendencies within the TC in the production of any translated text • The destabilization of the notion of an original message with a fixed identity • The integration of both ST and TT in the semiotic web of intersecting cultural systems.

  10. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE (continued) • Translation studies: there are as many variants of a translation as there are translators. • Yet, among those many versions, there will be what Popovic (1976) calls the “invariant core” of the original. The invariant= what exists in common between all existing translations of a single work. • Instead of prescribing a technique which can eliminate losses and smooths over changes, Popovic accepts that losses, gains and changes are a necessary part of the translation process because of the inherent differences of intellectual and aesthetic values in the two cultures.

  11. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE (continued) • E. Nida’s (1969) two types of equivalence: • formal equivalence (focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content); • dynamic equivalence (based on the principle of equivalent effect, i.e. that the relationship between receiver and message should aim at being the same as that between the original receivers and the SL language). • The equivalent effect is based on the “four basic requirements of a translation”: • making sense; • conveying the spirit and manner of the original; • having a natural and easy form of expression; • producing a similar response.

  12. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE (continued) • Peter Newmark’s two types of translation: • communicative translation- attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original ~ Nida’s dynamic equivalence; • semantic translation-attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original ~ Nida’s formal equivalence.

  13. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE (continued) • Werner Koller (1979) introduces the concept of correspondence, linked with the concept of equivalence:

  14. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE (continued) • Werner Koller’s (1979) five types of equivalence: • Denotative equivalence- related to the extralinguistic content of a text (“content invariance”); • Connotative equivalence- related to the lexical choices, especially between near-synonyms (“stylistic equivalence”); • Text-normative equivalence- related to text types; • Pragmatic/ communicative equivalence-oriented towards the receiver of the text or message; • Formal equivalence-related to the form and aesthetics of the text, includes word plays and the individual stylistic features of the ST (“expressive equivalence”).

  15. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE (continued) • Cay Dollerup’s (2006: 64) main concepts: • Translations as approximations- there is no perfect translation or ideal translator; we can only discuss tangible approximations of these elusive ideals; • Adequacy-a translation is adequate when it conveys the meaning of the source text to the target language in a given situation; the users, clients, recipients can determine the fulfillment of this criterion.

  16. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE (continued) • Most theories to date can be characterized as theories of (what is allegedly) the only legitimate or genuine kind of translation (D. Delabastita, 1991:143). • The genuine concept of translation can be defined - in positive terms, i.e. “to render the SL message with the closest TL equivalent...is, we believe, the only possible way leading to fidelity” (Shen, 1989:234). - in negative terms, i.e. “literalism has indeed little claim to theoretical validity as an approach to “total translation” (Shen, 1989:224).

  17. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE (continued) • Recent theories: • translation= an act of communication across cultural boundaries, the main criteria being determined by the recipient of the translation and its specific function (Snell-Hornby, 1988:47) • The traditional relationships between the ST and TT are replaced by networks of relationships and concepts of intertextuality (Toury, 1986; Lambert, 1989; E. Gentzler 1993) cultural studies model. • The translator’s task is to strive for the highest possible degree of “matching” or “equivalence” between the SL and the TL text, i.e. the TL text must try to achieve a similar effect on the foreign reader as the SL text does on the native reader(Wekker and Wekker, 1991:221, apudGentzler, 1993). The TL text must be equivalent to the SL text on both a linguistic and a socio-cultural level.

  18. Equivalence and adequacy in translation • K. Reiss and H. Vermeer (1984:133): in a number of translations, e.g. translations for teaching purposes and philological translations, the function of the TLT is different from that of the SLT. In this case, the principle governing the translation process is adequacy. • Adequacy= the appropriate selection of linguistic signs in the TL in view of the dimensions selected in the ST. (Reiss) • An adequate TT= one in which the TT matches a relevant dimension of the ST, because the translator does not aim at producing a full textual equivalent of the ST but focuses on a certain dimension of the ST. • Adequacy is a more general concept than equivalence. Equivalence involves matching not just one dimension, but all dimensions of the ST. • E. Nida (1976:64) considered that the relative adequacy of different translations of the same text “can only be determined in terms of the extent to which each translation successfully fulfils the purpose for which it was intended” (Nida, 1976:64).

  19. conclusions • Translation must take into consideration: • the linguistic context; • the semantic context; • the pragmatic context. • Translation also involves cultural translation, as cultures shape concepts and texts differently.

  20. REFERENCES: • Croitoru, Elena. 1996. Interpretation and Translation. Galati: Editura Porto-Franco. • Dollerup, Cay. 2006. Basics of Translation Studies. Iasi: Institutul European. • Munday, Jeremy. 2001. Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and applications. London: Routledge Group.

More Related