osn,na prevoda pomagalo com(1)

8/3/2019 Osn,Na Prevoda Pomagalo Com(1)

1/25

General Translation Theory - LECTURES

GTT subject matter, method of analysis, tasks.

GTT as an interdisciplinary branch of studies

T Studies a comparative study of 2 Ls; both didactic and applied aspect; the Q of correspondence b/n the units

of the 2 Ls. (Texts are the realization of L in speech.)

(TT studies T as a phenomenon in terms of the product and the process. The tr-ed text is the final decision ofthe Trr, the reader as no access to their dilemmas.

Two important things: EQUIVALENCE and UNIT.

If we treat the text as a self-contained entity, instead of as the product of a decision-making process, well need

a systematic study.)

GTT:

a set of abstract ideas, principles, bulk of studies

reflects the regular relations b/n tr-ed text and the original, picking out the typical and the recurrent,

seeking to build a model of T (based on the actual occurrence of texts);

covers all types of T; studies the process of Tas an actof bilingual communication; ~ as a multispectral

phenomenon in terms of the productof the process of decision-making (of the Trr)

The subject of TT is the study of the product of the decision-making process of T in relation to the process itself.

TT seeks to build a model of the TP; reflects the regular relations b/n the tr-ed text and the original seeks to find

what is typical and recurrent.

GTT is an interdisciplinary branch of studies:

- linguistic aspect: T is a special type of bilingual communication, L is its substance.

- Catford: the linguistic TT is a branch of comparative linguistics. It makes use of comparative Litand comparative stylistics (there is a Th of Literary T)

- In T we are interested in the preservation of meaning.

- Modern linguistics studies L as a dynamic phenomenon. The linguistic TT describes the process of

interlingual transformation.

- cultural aspect: T is a cultural phenomenon, anthropological ~; also connected with behaviour.- aesthetic aspect: conn with the poetic function of L how we say the message;

- preservation of imagery, the hidden layers of M of the text; T involves creativity to a various

degree.

- limited decision making the Trr has to make choices within the limits set by the author

- social aspect: conn to the function f L in society;

- psychological aspect: this model of Tr describes what goes on in the mind of the Trr, captures all

the mental processes; the cognitive factors => the cognitive aspect, too

- relation to literary studies

Other considerations:

Text (hidden meaning) is understood with the help of extralinguistic factors ( macrolinguistics), which help us

understand the hidden M of a text we solve ambiguities by reference to extralinguistic factors theme,situation, participants, purpose, etc; difference in audience; culture;

GTT is conn with applied linguistics => descriptive, not prescriptive!; related to practice, built upon the actual

occurrence of texts => an empirical discipline using induction as a method (tests a hypothesis and makes

conclusions); does not give sets of rules for translation.E.g.: TT cannot give rules for metaphor translation!!!

Idiosyncrasy and still there are norms in speech.

Dialects

1


2/25

1. Development of Ling-cs and its impact on TT:

1.1 Trad gram

1.2 Structural ling-cs

1.3 Generative tr gram

1.4 Semantics. Semiotics

1.5 Cogn ling-cs

1.6 Communication theory

The development of TT reflects the development of Linguistics.

(i) P r e h i s t o r i c a c c o u n t s:

The dilemmas of the Trr were explained by authors in the foreword.

(ii) T r a d G r a m m a r:

Thomas Savory The Art of Translation quotes definitions.

Alexander Tytler

Retsker (1950s) THE THEORY OF REGULAR CORRESPONDENCES one of the first models. Based onactual T data.

- a TT must have a solid ling-c base, bec it is made up of the comp study of ling-c phenomena and

the establishing of correspondences b/n the L of the original and of the tr-n. The linguistic base of thecorrespondences lies in lexis, phraseology, syntax and style.

- a static model (text-oriented) correspondences are established on the basis oflexical units, T is

seen as the mechanical transfer of such;

- based on trad grammar; makes use of the inductive method of analysis.

TYPES OF CORRESPONDENCES:

1/ equivalence: constant correspondences not depending on contextE.g.: terminology, names of organizations

2/ analogical correspondences: such when we need to make a choice among several synonyms

E.g.: business = -; ; ..affair > we should elicit the relationship whether it is about events, states, issues

3/ adequate substitutes: such when the Trr distances themselves from the original

3.1/ narrowing - making general notions concrete

3.2/ logical widening of the concept

3.3/ antonymical T3.4/ compensation

(iii) S t u c t u r a l I i n g u i s t i c s: (see E. Nida, Translation)

Two basic principles:

1/ L autonomy:

2/ The Aristotelian method of categorization describing L as a set of rules existing objectively, as an entitythat must be accepted by the individual; the functioning of the system is based on the discreteness of elements

on all levels.

Bloomfiled (1936) very formal approach

(1st model) Structural Ling-cs on TT is a model by Rezvin and Rozenczveyg:

- welcome trad TT but place it on modern Ling-c basis.

- didactic approach to T

2


3/25

- the subject of TT is similar to that of structural analysis: conn with studying the organizational

levels of speech;

it is the process of T (= a transition from one sign system into another), consisting of two parts:

1/ T proper

2/ interpretation (involves recalls to extraling-c phenomena)

- makes use of a L mediator

(2nd model) R. Jacobson (early 1920s)- The L of Lit should become the object of interest of ling-cs. Ling-c structuralism should break with

elitist restrictions.

- The functions of L: referential, interpersonal, emotive, connative, phatic, metalingual, poetic.

- The notion of transformation comes from mathematics: T takes place in the mind of the linguist;

the process of T can be described as the linear relation b/n the original and the tr-ed text.

- The use of L mediator is not obligatory

Three steps of the TPr:

1/ analysis of the original

2/ transfer on the level of the kernel sentence

3/ reconstruction of the kernel sentence of the 2nd L in a normal surface str-re

=> this model puts T on the level of the sentence which is an unnecessary complication

(3rd model) MEANING VS TEXT

- patterns and regularities characterizing the transformation of M into text and vice versa

- lexis vs syntax; deep vs surface str-re

(iv) G e n e r a t i v e T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G r a m m a r

(v) S e m a n t I c s. S e m i o t i c s: (see Ch. Filmore, Frames and U-semantics)

- deals with entailment relations, presuppositions

U-SEMANTICS (the semantics of understanding) the brand of S appreciative of TT

- accounts for participants in the comm act (the addresser and addressee are put into the picture) and

the subjective factors

PRAGMATICS (artificial distinction b/n pragmatics and semantics!)

- the relation between expression and content is arbitrary, a matter of convention. What we verbalize

and what we leave to other codes varies from L to L. We build our messages economically, deleting what is

obvious.

TEXT LING-CS AND DISCOURSE ANALYSISTT being a part of comparative semiotics

-the sentence is the upper level of analysis. The explanation of syntactic phenomena makes use ofsemantics. Some types of sentences cannot be explained if we dont make references to subsequent

sentences.

- text connectivity, discourse the text from a pragmatic point of view is a unit of M

- Stubbs: DAn is the study of L above the level of the sentence L in social context, interaction,

dialogue, SOCIOLOGY: L is context-sensitive, designed for communication

The original and the t-n are different, bec there are constraints on a level beyond the sentence.

TL and DAn practically started doing T and teaching T to students

Sentence-by-sentence T => the top-down analysis.

BUT M is not restricted to the sentence, it is located and distributed throughout he text.

3


4/25

Filmore

- interpretive frames central for understanding

(vi) C o g n i t i v e L i n g c s (M is related to the way we conceptualize, its subjective!)

The cognitive approach:

came into reaction to the limits of Generative Gr, which, interested in formalization, reached levels of abstractionwhere L was lost. Gen Gr reached universality of L on the level of deep str-re (believed L units were identical

among Ls in their deep str-re and different only in the surface str-re)

the cogn appr recognizes universality, but only in the way we see L!!!

E.g.: glue is metaphorical both in Eng and Bg, but not the same metaphor:

glued to the TV /

- rejects the assumption of structuralism about an autonomy of L and all its components

- principles and tendencies; values are relative and continuous, rather than absolute

- points to probabilities

Cogn Ling-cs is based on the Aristotelian philosophy in that:

- categorization (of evth!!) has a cognitive basis

- L has a similar str-re to the world a str-re of peoples experience and human knowledge ingeneral

L itself is an expression of the relation b/n human mind and world(this is the barrier for Cogn Ling-cs!)

- M corresponds to mental experience in the broad sense it includes the established and new

concepts, as well as the sensory aspect (our awareness of physical and social context)

- L is not a system of arbitrary signs signs have motivation.

- No difference b/n poetics and ordinary L; their subject-matter is identical: to structure the semantic

content

Thus style cannot be seen as the creative and resourceful utilization of L.

Enxvist:

- style is not individual, but refers to ANY use of L a property of all texts

- stylistic norms are established in relation to given texts and styles correlating with a particularsituation

- structural markedness is a feature of text, not L => new structural units can be regarded as

stylistically marked

When we speak, we have a variety of ling-c options to choose from. The choice we make is our choice of

conceptualization (provided by ling-c conventions) it depends on the semantic content.

Conventionalization is a matter of cognitive degree:

- In every L we can arrange the ling-c units on a scale from the general to the highly idiosyncratic.

In every situation we regard some features as salient/ prominent. Human knowledge is encyclopedic innature, open-ended, includes both the general and the idiosyncratic. A speakers choice of verbal

expression reflects their ability to construe a situation in alternative waysE.g.: a car diff M:

- tyres, engines, etc (to a boy)

- handsome stranger (to a young girl)

- evidence of trappings, consumerism; (to an antiglobalist)

- source of environment pollution (to an environmentalist)

4


5/25

=> no absolute distinction b/n gram and comm competence, b/n ling-c and non-ling-c, b/n connotation and

denotation

Langacer:

Imagery is non-verbal representation of objects and events formed in the mind. For an image to be an image, it

must embody a point of view and there must be a person to receive it.

It had been seen as attribute of poetic L only. But L has the ability to create images, describe things that have never

existed. Ling-c M is related to imagery. All uses of L draw on the same conceptual resources. Metaphor isnt anattribute of poetic L, it is a tool of cognition, a way of giving str-re to reality by understanding one thing through

another.

Cogn Ling-cs focuses on probabilistic tendencies, thus offering a more adequate framework for defining T

equivalents and evaluating non-impressionistic elements and such that are not based on purely ling-c principles

(vii) C o m m u n i c a t i o n T h e o r y (see E. Nida, Translation)

1930s Richards model of CT as applied to T:

- source: has a certain situation in mind

- selector and decoder, transmitter, receiver, developer

- destination: makes use of comparison fields

- channel capacity: the ability of the receiver to understand the M of the textIf the decoder has a narrow channel capacity, the comm is unsuccessful

- feedback is important encourages Trrs to pay attention to the receivers responseNo T carries across the message of the original to an absolute degree, theres always some loss.

2. A dynamic vs a static approach to T. T as a process of:

2.1 communication

2.2 understanding the Stext and production of the Ttext

2.3 decision making

2.4 interlingual transformation

Source text -> target text (Stext -> Ttext ) the Ttext is the main focus of interest.The dynamic approach to T focuses in the activity of t-ing

Otto Kade

- from the point of view of comm T as an act of bilingual comm

- the comm act is described in terms of 2 participants: sender/ source and receiver communicating by means

of a channel, code and message.

/ S / / R / Rc / S1 / R1S = Source text; R= Receiver; Rc = decoding: S1 = sender; R1 = receiver

R = Rc = S1 = Translator (Trr)

The source produces the message, the receiver (Trr) receives the messages and becomes a source for the

receiver.

stage I: / S / / R / (sending and receiving the message;pre-analysis)stage II: / Rc / (de-codingand re-codingperformed by the Trr)

stage III: / S1 / R1(synthesis of final message; comm b/n Trr and Rec)Stages I and II are removed in time, stages II and III coincide.

Stage III finding a t-n that corresponds to the source message and communicating it to the addressee.

5


6/25

The processes of encoding and decoding are not simple they should decide which M is best to render and

often there is a number of choices.The channel and code are needed to give more background info to make the message more easily

understandable for the receiver.

Code

l

Adresser _________ MESSAGE _________ Addressee

Sender Communicative channel Receiver

l

Content

Functions:

Code: metaling-cSender: emotive (even Ouch! is a message expresses emotion)Receiver: connative

Message:poetic (see what happens when we preserve pun to the detriment of referential M )Communicative channel:phaticContent: referential/ denotative

Not all functions are present at the same time the Trrs task is to preserve the dominant one.E.g.: Eng O! and Bg O!

Komissarov

The source selects a set of signs to make a text, the code reflects reality. The situation in which the message is

produced and previous ling-c and extraling-c exp are important factors.

T as a process of interlingual comm:

The Trr is at the end of the t-n in the SL and at its beginning in the TL => two comm situations of the originaland of the t-n

The situation in which the original was created (form and content of message) is influenced by the situation and

the previous exp of the people of the two Ls

Important teleological point of view: T is an act of comm, it conveys the meaning of the original.

Jiry Levi

- T is a process of decision-making from the point of view of the working exp of the Trr they

make a choice among a certain number of alternatives.

- Components of the decision-making process: a situation and a paradigm of instructions to help us

definitional instructions and selectional instructions. They may be conscious or unconscious, objective or

subjective.

- The interpretation of M is in the form of a move from the most general to the more specific. DiffLs are characterized by diff L segmentation (denser and less dense)

E.g.: convergence: make manufacture, produce, create; float, drift, swim

- Every decision we make is influenced by our knowledge of previous decision.

- The outcome of two diff decisions is two diff T variants (diff in stylistic or rhythmic or prosodic

etc nature)

- Each decision predetermines the next and is influenced by previous ones. They depend on L

material and the Trrs own approach.

6


7/25

3. Theories of M and TT. Types of M

In TT we want to state that text B is a t-n of text A. B is a T equivalent of A if it preserves the M.

What is M? is then a basic Q.

Jacobson: L is a code!

M is a ling-c phenomenon. In order to understand it, you should be able to translate it into another ling-c code.- Intralingual T describes M via synonyms or rephrasing.

- Interlingual T interpretation of a sign via the signs of another L.

- Intersemiotic T interpretation of verbal signs via non-verbal signs.

In non-L codes we have 1:1 relation b/n the sign and what it stands for there is a prior agreement b/n them.

M is a semiotic act we can understand it with the assistance of a verbal code.

Catford

M is the total network of relations entered into by any L sign. (Participants arent included in this theory.) Two

kinds of relations:

- formal (b/n one L item and all other items in the same L) L-specific and cannot be preserved in T

- contextual (between the grammatical and lexical items in context) can be preserved in T

Komissarov: Ten types of info that a sign carries

Jacobson: six functions of L; links the dominant function of a message to the intention of the addresser.

E.g.: the connative function can be found in politics, advertising, orders, requests.

Morris: the relation b/n the sign, what it stands for and the users => the three fields of inquiry of semiotics

Barkhudarov:- L is a system of signs, L exists in speech, each sign has a plane of content and a plane of

expression.

- L can be used to refer to things which are not observable at the moment of speech or dont exist at

all L can describe any situation.

- If M was a substance, it would exist in the mind but it is a relation b/n the sign and something

outside the sign.

- The sign refers to objects, events and situations with the help of the concept this is captured by

the referential M. The concept is part of the conceptual system existing in our mind and is associated with

our picture of the world.

- Pragmatic M relation b/n the sign and the user

- Intraling-c M relation b/n the sign and other signs in the system.

Every sign in diff contexts has a dominant function. The ref M is the easiest to preserve, pragm M is strongly

dependent on culture and intraling-c M does not lend itself to t-n.

How do we understand M? By applying the relevant ling-c or non-ling-c knowledge.

- cognitive frames groups of items which belong to different parts of the frame

- interactional frames can merge with cognitive frames (the static aspect of the frame)

- dynamic frames are organized into patterns, schemas, scripts, scenarios (patterns of knowledge

frames) Bell

7


8/25

From a sem point of view we can consider a sentence a small part of what we mean. The m of a sentence isnt the

sum of the M of its constituents its an expression of asymmetry. The mismatch b/n form and content of a signleads to the statement that the M of an utterance can be interpreted by reference to a higher level paragraph, etc.

Collocational capacity of a sign: the ability of the sign to express diff Ms by sound combinations is related to L

economy. Implication depends on communicative intentions if we do all the mental work for the addressee, if we

explain everything, the pragmatic effect will be low. This depends on the resources a L can offer.

4. Types of M and their preservation in T. the limits of translatability. Translatability as a scale

M is the relation b/n the sign and the referent.

A L has the resources to describe any portion of reality, thats why referential M is the easiest to preserve.

Pragmatic M is more difficult.

A M is sometimes not preserved => better to say rendered/ preserved

Referential M

The range of Ms expressed by the units of diff Ls is wide the units of diff Ls cannot be completely correspondent

to each other

Full correspondence a matter of finding the word in the dictionary.

E.g.: Proper names, names of places, groups of similar words days, months, numbers.

Not all words are in full correspondence some terms are polysemantic, some synonymous.

E.g.: power , , , ;

compartment, cell, camera, chamber

Partial correspondence one word in the SL has several equivalents in the TL

- inclusion when the range of the word in the SL is broader

E.g.: character , , Hes a character!

- overlap the two words divide and share Ms

E.g.: to sacrifice, a victim; dining room, mess room undifferentiated to what part of the body in Eng we are referring arm or hand?

leg or foot?

To say that a sign in one L is undifferentiated to a sign in another L doesnt mean its untranslatable Ls differ

in what they must express!

With overlapping the Trr needs to make a choice sts the context helps

- relations of lexical fields (groups of semantically similar words) the M of a word depends on

what part of the semantic field/ group it belongs to

E.g.: sem field TIME OF THE DAY: day and night? 24 hours?

or

morning , evening night these are not always true!

We have one and the same portion of reality in the two Ls, but it isstr-red in diff ways:Eng: afternoon: midday to 6 PM; evening: sunset to midnight; the day: daylight; night: dark

Bg: : sunrise to 10-11 oclock; : after 10 oclock to sunset; : sunset to 10-11 PM; :

asleep

Diff criteria will determine the choice: cup-glass-goblet-tumbler-mug-tankard

Lack of correspondence a word has no corr in the TL - L REALIA - objects, activities, situations unfamiliar to

the target audience

8


9/25

functions of realia: descriptive, pragmatic (symbolic f-n, additional connotations)

classification of realia:

1/ The Washington Post , but 24 24 Hours

geographical notions: the bush in Australia = the wilderness; in Bg the mountain in general

2/ names of native populations:

aboriginal - Canadians use the term for their native population3/ thatched cottage in England they are quite pretty and expensive

4/ music, dances, mus instruments, rituals, measurements, money5/ administrative units:

county Br / Am ; region; municipality; ward

rendering realia trough transcription:

E.g.: (the ash Bg a)

exceptions: , , , ? ; ? ;

man of Gabrovo ? Gabroviantransliteration: zh; Hristo ? Christo; Filipov ? Philipov

rendering realia through t-n

- neologisms ,

- calques (lit t-n, preserve the sem content, but lose expressivity),

-partial calques: , currency board -

- adaptation making the new word look as if it was a native one:

currency board

- generalization instead of the original specific, we use a more general word

mineral water

- functional equivalent focus on the response of the receiver: checkers -

- description, explanation and interpretation: sweet white bread

- contextual t-n convey content by means of transformation: good neighbours

choice b/n translation and transcription depends on:

- the nature of the text and the genre in some texts a realia functions as a term.

- surveillance in sociology and psychology

- in literary texts:- in prose we may transcribe and use a footnote

- in drama no transcription

- in childrens Lit no transcription

- in adventure stories transcription is desirable

- in popular science - transcription is desirable, but with a detailed comment

- the role of the realia does it draw attention or is it a minor detail

- the nature of the realia the features of the realia are important

- trad attitude to foreign elements Bg culture is more open to foreign elements than others

Pragmatic M

Pragmatics in ling-cs includes the diff in understanding ling-c units depending on the ling-c or non-ling-c

experience. The base are the extraling-c factors: topic, situation, participants. It includes L in use and its context!

Idiolect the idiosyncratic use of L of a speaker. The attitude of the speaker to the sign becomes part of the M of

the word => pragmatic M

Sub-components of pragmatic M (Barhudarov, Readings )1/ stylistic characteristics of a word some words are used predominantly in one genre/ style:

9


10/25

- neutral items used in all kinds of texts

- conversational/ colloquial items used in spoken L

- literary items used only in written L

- poetic items used only in poetry

- terminology items used only in scholarly texts

2/ register refers to what people do with their L. Defined in terms of grammar and vocabulary

Barhudarov lists 5 types of register: familiar informal, neutral, formal, sublime

Translatability is seen as dichotomy:

For those who favour translatability, whats in our minds is universal. For those who favour untranslatability,

different cultures see reality in different ways (the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis)

What is universal are the cognitive processes (comparison, analogy), but the precise feature we

select as salient is different across Ls.

No text is fully translatable or untranslatable, but we have a scale of translatability.

Translatability depends on itersystemic M and on the level of embeddedness of the word/ text in the culture.

5. Levels of content analysis. Komissarov and Barhudarov. The unit of T

When we analyze a text, what do we analyze? Ling-c procedures analyze the ling-c levels (phonological,morphological, etc..) but this is only atomizing there is more to analyze before t-ing!!

=> content levels of analysis

(summary):

1. relative importance of levels

2. semantically identified levels (Van Dijk)

3. purely sequential levels

4. all levels integrated into a model of coherence (incl L, non-L, participants, communication, ideas)

Komissarov

Assumes that relations of equivalence are based on relation b/n analogical levels of the content of the original and

the content of the t-n. The content of a text is analyzed in layers. Hierarchical levels differ in the sort of info the

source conveys to the receiver.

Levels of content/ info in a text:

- sign

- code

- utterance

- goal Every speech act is intended to achieve one, e.g. to inform; to change sbs thoughts, etc

- determines the contentof the text, that is, what is used to achieve the goal; through this content weachieve the goal.

- retrievedby the receptor

- situation phenomena, objects and relations in the real or imaginary world

- description of a situation the info conveyed by the source about these ph, obj, rel-s.

- message verbal expression of a description of a situation.No situation can be fully described. We select from all possible aspects of the situation only the prominent

characteristics and give a verbal expression for them

10


11/25

E.g.: The traffic was bad./ The traffic was heavy./ The traffic was slow./ There was a long line of cars on

the motorway.These are all ways of describing the same situation. The same message, synonymous expressions

my dog/ my setter/ the long-haired dog

BUT

different content: The fire was started by some children./ Some children started the fire.

different messages:Some children started a fire. The house burned down.

Messages differ in their str-re, in the nature and ordering of the employed sem categories.- The source describes a situation by means of a message to achieve a certain goal.

- For the receptor, the levels of content analysis correspond to the levels of analyzing a text top-down processing builds a hypothesis of what the source is trying to achieve.: sign utterance message situation goal. (This is a theoretical construct; we dont always follow this order!! We perceive the info as awhole without breaking it down.)

For the source, the opposite sequence of processing: goal situation message utterance signs

Two aspects of all levels of analysis:

1. choice

- on the level ofsituation there are many constraints e.g. the preference of the L community the

situation described should help us achieve our goal;

- utterance and sign even more limited (e.g. the constraint of style, register)

2. hierarchical nature content is characterized by the ability of levels to express, limit and determine oflower level => influence, preference

- the goal we choose may determine the formE.g.: How may / Can I help you? (US / GB)

Often the goal does not determine for as such, but a group of forms

E.g.: A-plus-B-tags asking for info

A-plus-A-tags a diff pragm goal

Keep off the grass! !

No dogs allowed! !/ !

- the message

E.g.: idiomatic speech: Haste makes waste.; People start smoking due to peer pressure.- sign preferences collocation/ valency: tears run/ flow

In T the Trr combines the f-n of a source and of a receptor. He goes the two ways from the sign up (lower-to-

higher levels => interpretation) and down to the sign (higher-to-lower levels => production). A given level

requires a particular form Checking the extent to which a level determines the T variant.

E.g.: (the level of goal determining the T variant): . (gambling domain) He put his reputation on the line.

If there are no such limitations => the choice is made on the level of the sign. Searching to establish equivalence

if it is not possible on a lower, we search for it on a higher level. Equivalence on a lower requires equivalence on a

higher level!!

Drawbacks of theory:Besides the content plane there is also the expression plane of the sign. The same goes for the utterance. The

message is problematic on which plane is it?

=> there are two sets of levels: expression and content. The expression plane is more easily identified. On the

content plane the levels are not so straightforward.

Van Dijk

11


12/25

Cognitive processes determine discourse comprehension. Its basic aspect: predominantly sem nature of the

processes involved. We establish a semantic or conceptual representation of that text in our memory.

Semantic interpretation:

- local at the local level of discourse we interpret sentences and establish relations of coherence b/n

successive sentences.

- global at the global level we establish the theme, topic, gist of text/ passage, the setting-up, etc

All these are macrostr-res sequences of propositions

E.g.: Nice work by D. Lodgemacroproposition: the world of academia meets the world of business

semantic operations:

- deletion/ removal of all propositions the reader thinks are irrelevant to interpretation

- generalizing specific into general propositions

- identifying places of info about an episode => bringing them together and replacing them

by one proposition to represent a whole episode

to manage to do these, the Trr and reader must be familiar with business and academia in England

V D identifies two sets of levels in a lit work:

1. the sequential level e.g. individual sentences following one another

2. the non-sequential level discontinuous, not linear; e.g. character portrayal

Barhudarov:

Analyzing a text on the level of the phoneme, morpheme, etc.

T-n at the word-level literal T

T-n at the level of the phrase involves the t-n of idiomatic expressions.

T-n of sentences proverbs, sayings, idiomatic sentences, text-poems

Beaugrande and Dressler

Seven standards of textuality.

1st problem : coherence (continuity of sense, the sense-making quality of a text) it does not leave the confines of a

text => how do we explain a text in which coherence is not immediately obvious?E.g.: -- Will she be long? Shes with Frank.

Intentionality and acceptability. The immediate context is very crucial.

2nd problem : characters speaking at cross purposes

E.g.: absurdist drama, orchestrated dialogues in fiction

Alice the trial none of the speakers speaks sense, but they are not held responsible for

their actions

=> for solution, see Fillmore

Umberto Ecco

Semantic interpretation a process in which a reader fills up a given text with a given M. the constraint upon

interpretation comes from the text itself. Sem interpretation is appropriate in texts in which theres

symmetry between the surface and the deep str-re.

Critical interpretation metaling-c activity describing and explaining for which formal reasons a text produces

a certain response. Called for in the analysis of aesthetic texts. They contain clues permitting the receptor

to move from observable to implied.

12


13/25

Not all text require both types of interpretation. Symmetry b/n deep and surface str-re.

Textual coherence controls the otherwise uncontrollable drives of a reader.If it is a measure of relevance, it should be approached from a broader viewpoint.

Levinson

Implicit claim that coherence should be described in pragmatic terms. A text is a coherent and goal-directed whole.

E.g.: In all pragmatically-dominated texts the effect of humour is achieved on the basis of incompatibility. Collaboration in the framework of pragmatics (starts with Grices maxim ofcooperation).

Fillmore

Relationships b/n textual and other worlds help us understand by giving us clues.

Explicitness is characteristic of dialogues. But even if it is not there, we still understand the unmentioned due to

communicative competence.

The production and interpretation of an utterance and the very success of the comm act depend on comm

competence, too.

Coherence described on diff content levels :

1. ling-c and paraling-c level observable str-re;

looking at the L used and the paraling-c devices employed2. ideational level coh captures the ideas and propositions; sem and relational M (Are the ideas illustrative

or elaborate or one upon the other?)

3. participation framework coh is used to capture the diff roles of the speaker and the hearer performingtheir diff social status

4. knowledge and metaknowledge how much knowledge about the world is relevant to the given situation4.1 knowledge as an internal state an entire body of facts in our memory;

not immediate access to all of them closest is the info most recently processed4.2 externalized/ activated knowledge provides context for the utterance and ensures maximum

interpretation with minimum effort

Compatibility b/n clues and chunks of knowledge.

=> Coherence is not one of the 7 standards of textuality, but a general/ superordinate property of a text within

which the rest (intentionality, acceptability, informativity, coherence, situationality, contextuality) areincluded.

6. Semantic apparatus for analysis in TT. Componential analysis. Predication analysis.

Sem analysis initially focused on the level of the word.

Lexicocentric approach a word has a constant M of its own

Textocentric approach a word derives its M partly from other words it occurs with.

Componential analysis

The relation among man woman child same as among bull cow calf

Nida: verbs of motion and items of furniture lend themselves easily to comp analysis.

Relations of inclusion: superordinance & hyponymy (move run; plant tree; mammal tiger)

Types of components:

- common define the set; common in the M of all the words of the set

13


14/25

- diagnostic the necessary and sufficient conditions for distinguishing among related Ms

- supplementary additional; important if we want to provide detailed analysis of the M

E.g.: movement through space

diagnostic comp: contact with surface (like b/n walk and run)

supplementary comp: speed (we are not distinguishing b/n walk and run here)

Limitations of comp analysis:

1. impossible to compare in a single comp analysis all the M of a series of words;must stay confined to M which occur in the same sem domain/ lex field

E.g.: run analyze it as a verb of motionIt is difficult to go beyond and analyze metaphorical Ms.

In comp analysis we stay in the same sem field

Assuming that the word derives m from the M of the other words in the set is untrue it derives it from its

conceptual M!!

2. difficult to apply to abstract notions

E.g.: lofty, exulted

3. comp analysis is an objectivist (its philosophical basis being objectivism) and reductionist

(reducing phenomena and objects to their objective features)

But M is an open-ended and encyclopedic phenomenon!

Fillmore on the deficiencies of comp analysis :

The M of a word is a matter of its conceptual underpinning. It is difficult to exhaust the whole content of the word.

We categorize on the basis ofshared properties, but categories are separated from each other. Often it is difficult toknow where to stop when establishing components. Componential analysis is good for specific, not for abstract

words. Polisemous words are also a problem.

Predication analysis

As a result of the deficiencies of comp analysis, pred analysis was developed. Working with whole predications

the M of some words can be described through such, as if they contain a sentence in them, it is not possible to list a

finite number of components.

E.g.: discourse markers: well, oh, a, really?

Jeoffrey Leech, the 3-tier/ 3-level sem system : (hierarchical relationship)

- features/ components

- clusters of sem features:

- arguments/ propositional calculus relatable to objects (entities participating in events/ states)

- predicates related to events, states, processes

- predications predicating at least one argument

Pre-history of pred analysis: (pred an is based on logical semantics)

=> predicate calculus (studying the internal str-re of simple propositions) and propositional calculus (procedure

used in studying relations among simple propositions without looking at their internal str-re) notation takenfrom mathematical theory of calculus

Simple propositions (small caps p, q, r) combine with connectors to form complex propositions:

disjunction X or Y;

negation X is not Y;

equivalence X equals Y;

conjunction X and Y;

implication if X, then Y

14


15/25

Limitations: Cannot capture time, space, modality and other imp elements of the argument or predicate. Deals with

propositions affirmative statements BUT what of interrogatives and exclamations? Difficult to capture caseswhen a whole predication is embedded in a word.

B. Aleksieva

Assumptions of pred analysis:

In T we deal with a text which is the product of the realization of L in speech. The basic unit is the utterance. The

M of an utterance isnt the sum total of the M of its constituents. It should be analyzed by sem features of whichthere are two clusters: arguments (objects and people participating in an event) and predicates (events, actions,

processes) => we use the 3-tier sem system.

More straightforward notation: A, P, PN

E.g.: The screams of the baby brought the neighbours.

E.g.: (-- Do you think I tried to make up to him?)

-- Well, it looked very much like it, you must admit. , .

(creating the impression of a deliberate hesitation) (plainly speaking his mind)(not fragmented as the Eng variant)

Eng norm of speech: speak in such a way as not to offend; phrase so as to mitigate the offense.

PN: I am sure it was like this. PN: I think you did.I dont want to say it, because I dont You must admit you did.

Want you to be hurt. Im sure you did.

MISSING: I dont want to hurt you.

EXPLICATED:

, , .

Transformations:

The three sublevels of sem representation: referential, pragmatic and intralinguistic.

1. on the referential level, the deepest interlingual transformation; series of unorderedpropositions providing a detailed picture of the situation in an expanded form (listing absolutely all possible

components)

2. on the pragmatic level basis: thematic M assigned ; intentions of the speaker determine whichpropositions receive prominence; some ordering in saliency; one proposition is selected as the matrix into

which the other propositions are embedded

3. on the intralinguistic level some M is selected for explication (depending on the viewpoint of thespeaker), the others for implication. Factors:

- the comm intentions of the speaker (what is important to them)

- structure and norms of the L

Billy saw his father and hurried through the lines of debarking passengers toward him.

PN1 [A1(He) + P(saw) + A2(him)]

PN2 [A2(He) + P(moved)]

Speed: fast

Direction: his fatherPath: through

PN3 [A1(=PN1) + P(cause) + A2(=PN2)]

A sentence and its t-n may be equivalent on at least one of the sublevels.

E.g.: on deepest level of referential M E may or may not exist; sts shifts, sacrifices requiredon shallowest level: E is very rare. The degree of explication and implication is often L-

specific. In T of poetry and pun. It is very rare to have preservation of M

on intralingual and referential level.

15


16/25

This model takes into account the dominant type of M + a consideration that its preservation may require changesin other types of M.

What is only hinted should also be taken into account.

Equivalence can be achieved when we achieve the communicative goal by describing the situation.

Ls more or less agree on the level of sem content, but disagree in the way it is verbalized.

E.g.: His hand was dry on her skin. .

expresses not a contingent, but a conceptualaspect of the M.

. the explicit in Eng is implicit in Bg; the implicit

in Eng (perception) become explicated in Bg

=> 1/ Identify the components of an utterance; 2/ establish relations between propositions; 3/ decide which one

remains implicit and for what reason

But implicitness exists not only on the ling-c level. => If the goal is pragmatic, identify it and find ways of

expressing it.In literary and media texts explication will do no justice to the author.

Usually we dont go through that whole procedure. Predication and predication analysis are theoretical constructs to

work with on the level of comprehension and transformation.

Komissarov

T-n takes place in real time, Trr-s work with segments, they attempt to produce a gestalt [understanding]

7. TE. Nature of the debate.

Textual equivalence/ formal correspondence (Catford). Dynamic equivalence (Nida). Functional equivalence

(Ljudskanov). Functional content. The Skopos theory. A cognitive approach to TE

In TT there are two approaches Stext-oriented studies and Ttext-oriented studies.

The skeptical approach.For Stext-oriented studies the use of TE isnt productive. Many scholars disapprove of the term itself perverse,

obstacle, Mary Hornby Translation equivalence is an illusion. Long debate and numerous attempts to definethe notions of TE.

The strong objection comes from a misunderstanding of equivalence (strange to base a debate on the M of a

word)

German Equivalenze a term from mathematics and logic (exact sciences). German TT started using it as a

technical term for the idea ofequivalence = REVERSABILITY.

E.g.: table absolute identity and always reversable

Then the term was taken over by TT. Reversability is now a crucial notion in machine T.In Eng: equivalence scientific term and general word

equivalent = of similar significance, virtually the same

Proponents see Ttext as equivalent to Stext, taking the M of equivalence as in mathematics and formal logic:

absolute symmetry and equality and guaranteed reversabilityBUT it does not work for TT it is never possible to establish such symmetry b/n Ls.

1. attempts to classify TE as identity

2. approaches based onsimilarity of MBoth approaches criticized Mary Snell Hornby; Peter Newmark: TE and UT (units of T) are dead, TE

considered on the whole unsuitable as a basic concept imprecise, ill-defined

16


17/25

A less pessimistic (and more realistic) view:E can be taken to mean similarity and attempts can be made to define it and get away from vagueness. Never

expect complete identity! Allow for degrees of approximation.

The pragmatic approach:

To qualify what we mean by TE and 1/ place T in front of E and analyze the phenomenon; 2/ answer the Q

Equivalence of what?TT scholars agree that a relationship of E on the level of the word does not exist. We have diff sem maps of

Ls. => It should be determined what elements of Stexts may remain equivalent and under what

circumstances.

(chronologically):

I. Catford

The narrowly ling-c approach.

The central task is to define the nature and conditions under which TE can occur. In T we do not transfer M b/n Ls!

What we do is replacingSLM with TLM because M is a property of L!

E.g.: Russian text Russian M/ Eng text Eng M

M is the total network of relations entered into by any given unit. The replacement of M is achieved either through

formal correspondence (a relation b/n the Ttext and Stext in which an item in the TL occupies the same place in

the L system as the respective unit in the SL) or textual equivalence (achieved through T shifts departures from

FC)

Hallidays scale of four levels the phonological, graphological, grammatical and lexical and four fundamental

types of categories of ling-cs: class (e.g. parts of speech), structure (e.g. parts of the sentence), system (e.g. number)

and unit (e.g. morpheme, sentence, rank)

When we cannot tr on one level of ling-c form, we an achieve TE through a T shift from one level to another (adj to

adv, word to sentence)There is a circularity of definitions. Based on isolated and simplistic sentences.

Formulating T rules built up statistically (too optimistic)=> two texts can be seen as equal if they share the same relevant situational features

BUT situation is often described from diff angles E.g.: Keep off the grass

The goal of communication/ comm goal is an imp component (the pragmatic one) together with the responses toit.

Catford sees TE as sth that can be quantified and qualified but he overlooks the overall ling-c

environment at the time of context-sensitive ling-cs!

Komissarov

Writer begins with a goal, chooses a portion of reality and describes it through messages made up of utterancescomposed of signs. Trr moves sign utterance message situation goal (most important). E is the way of the

writer and the way of the Trr. E at each level depends on E at higher levels. The goal is at the top of the list of

levels. Full TE if there is E on all levels the ideal case:

g o a l

s i t u a t i o n

m e s s a g e

u t t e r a n c e & s i g n

But when this ideal E does not work, we should try to achieve E at least on the goal level.

17


18/25

The task is (in order of importance) first to grasp the goal, then render situation, then convey message, then

utterance and finally sign!!!

Komissarov and Nida E goes beyond narrowly linguistic confines.

II. Nida

Cultural and ling-c differences and the role of the Trr in bridging them. Relationship b/n L, culture and society andhow the insights form ling-c analysis can be applied for the studies of T. => the narrow focus on ling-c str-re and M

has to be widened to include a wide range of contextual factors.

Bible T how to translate the Bible for primitive cultures? TE on the ling-c level does not work => we need sth

else.

Sts on the cognitive level referential M

Sts on the emotional level pragmatic M

The individual Trr-s treats the text in diff ways and whether the t-n is adequate or not depends on the nature of the

text, or on the type of receptor for whom the t-n is intended.

Nidas assumptions:

- a universalist approach anything can be said in another L (unless the form is essential to themessage)

- communicative view of T we cannot judge the adequacy of the t-n on the basis of what a

bilingual says about it, bec they know both the original and the t-n knowing the original influences the

response to the t-n=> what should be taken into account is only the response of the monolingual receptor. The response of the

reader of the t-n should be comparable to the response of the reader of the original

Substantial similarity b/n the two types of response is sought

Nidas view of TE:

- dynamic equivalence a set of procedures a Trr must employ to ensure the same response to the t-

n as the response to the original. Does not follow a set of rules, since the Trr may need to adjust cultural

material

E.g.: the Lamb of God for Eskimos the Seal of God

Procedures to ensure DE:

1. replace SL items with more appropriate TL cultural items E.g.: thatched cottage - 2. explicate in the TL references implicit in the SL

3. introduce redundancy in the t-n (the more material the easier to understand)

the socio-cultural aspect

The problem of measuring the response e.g. through inquiries or close tests of the translated text

Difference b/n DE (focus on the comm goal) and formal correspondence (focus on form and content)

DE and FC are not a dichotomy! general tendencies, not special techniques (neither are they absolute notion)!

The primary factor for distinguishing b/n them is response => these are two diff ways of approaching a text

depending on the audience! With FC the Trr tries to relate the reader to a certain response. There can be no absolute

correspondence b/n Ls the responses may be similar, but never identical.Sts Trr-s of sacred texts choose FC, but sts the Trr is not willing to take such responsibility e.g. in diplomatic

correspondence or texts where every word matters.

III. Ludskanov

18


19/25

- there is no content that cannot be expressed (similar to Nidas universalist approach)

- (same as Komissarov) about the working situation of the Trr:

with more or less lengthy messages, T cannot be achieved as a one-off act. Its a real-time operation. The

original should be segmented and then taken one segment after the other.

Once the Trr finishes reading the book, he does not start form scratch, but tr-s ling-c device by ling-c device

(that is, sentence by sentence, word by word, etc) replaces devices in the SL with devices in the TL! One Lmay have a device which the other L does not have due to diff segmentation of the world. Such problems are

solved at deeper levels the levels of info which a ling-c device carries. Every device performs a certainfunction. The same experience can be created in the SL by a diff device. The only possible T is that which at

the analysis stage identifies the function and then preserves it by a certain device. When we thus get a Ttextfunctioning in the same way as the Stext, we say the t-n is the originalsfunctional E!

Le Beaugrande

1. the relevant unit of T is the text (not the word, for instance)

2. T is seen not only in the similarities and diff-s b/n Stext and Ttext, but also as a process of

interaction b/n author, Trr and reader.

What is of interest is not the text features themselves, but the underlying strategies of L use these strategies

must be seen in the context of comm

The response of the receptor a notion which generated further research broader under the banner of cultural

studies.

The cultural model:Should the external form be preserved and what are the wider implications?

The invisibility of the Trr refers to the extent to which certain traditions tolerate the Trr in the t-n.

- the Trrs use of L

- the way in which t-ns are received and evaluated

Anglo-Am tradition the most important values in T are fluency and transparency and readability in t-ed

works what is imp is undisturbed comm T which conveys M in the easiest possible way

Lawrence Venuttipolitical agenda

English is the L most tr-ed from and least tr-ed into!

Foreign texts will fail the fluency test, if they fail to be understandable

Foreignisation and domestication:

(transparency vs untransparency, readability vs unreadability a debate as old as T itself)

- foreignisation deliberately breaks cultural and ling-c elements to retain form and style; leaving

the writer at peace by bringing the reader to them

- domestication (the hallmark of the Anglo-Am T tradition) alienating difficulties, transparent

and fluent style; leaving the reader at peace by bringing the writer to them

- stereotypes of national cultures and particular perceptions play a role!

-leads to preserving the Lit cannon in the TL and ensures a central place for more prestigious formsat the expense of weaker ones => the best T strategies in the domestication approach are such that ensure

cultural hegemony

E.g.: when tr-ing French into E, it appears abstract, highly theoretical, erudite, learned. Whereas German is

simpler in t-n, more straightforward.

Parapraxis in English

This methodology explained with the cultural climate.

The Trr would reject hermeneutics (= interpretation) and stick to scientific terms (thus going back to logical

positivism)

19


20/25

Freud is dogmatic but the English t-n made him sound abstract. He spoke about the soul, which wastranslated MIND not due to some carelessness of the Trr, but deliberate attempt to place him into

medical science only.

Functionalism. The Skopos theory

TL-oriented focus on how the text is perceived; preservation of the functionEmerged in the 1960s Hans Wermeer and Katharina Reiss

1. Purpose/ function (skopos):

Functionalism focuses on the pragmatic function and the dynamics of interaction.

The eventual shape of the TL text is determined by the purpose/ function which this text is intended to perform.

Relies on the concepts of pragmatics intention and action

Main assumptions:

- interaction is determined by its purpose

- purpose varies with text receivers

audience design a factor => the response of receiver is important

the Ttext must be produced with a certain purpose in mind

Wermeer the Skopos rule: each text is produced with a purpose and must serve this purpose=> speak, write, etc. in such a way that would enable your t-n to function in the situation it is used and

with/ for the ppl for whom it is intended; the text you produce must be such as to function in such a way as

the ppl you produce it for want/ need it to function

types of purpose:

- comm purpose to inform, persuade, convince

- strategic purpose (a purpose of T procedure and strategy) for literal T and T which is more

fluent, but deviates from original what matters is not exact content

- general purpose to impress readers; to make a living; to make justice to the original

Is interpretation consistent with what is expected?

Feedback an extremely important factor with the Skopos theory successful T is this that does not elicit

protest coherence.

- intratextual coherence focus on the receptor they should be able to make sense of the text; too

literal texts fail the coherence test

- intertextual coherence fidelity consistence B/n Stext and Ttext; focus on the relationship b/n

Ttext and original

2. Offer of information

Every text is characterized by a plurality of M.

Sts a T may give rise to M not intended

=> the t-n should provide an offer of information to the reader.

In the original the writer does not give the reader all the Ms, but leave then to choose by giving

them the text.

Trr interprets the original in a way consistent with his/ her expectations. Readers interpret the

t-n in their own situation according to their expectations

This argument results in arbitrariness and too great freedom of choice a rather free-willing approach.

3. T brief Instruction by the client for the Trr sth we rarely get

Example of T brief not provided: T about breast cancer tr-ed for women above 30 and not for teenagers!

Reiss

Three basic types of texts acc to their intention, rhetorical purpose, function: informative, expressive and operative

(which persuade). Theres a correlation b/n text type and T method in some cases.

20


21/25

Kristiane Nord

Loyalty the principle accounting for an attitude a Trr shows in the relation of the author of the Stext and the

reader of the t-n.

Criticism: reject the assumption that the Ttext should preserve features of the Stext.

BUT this principle is applicable when the purpose of T clashes with the intention of the author.

The cognitive approach to TE

The pessimistic approach to TE.

Cognitive ling-cs deals with the interaction b/n L and cognition.

The view of cognitivists on M is subjectivist diff M every time you read a text. The capacity for

conceptualization is based upon experience. Experience is a crucial factor for the understanding of the world

Dressler

TE is E in the experience of the participants; Experiential E should also include exp of pre-text perception!Experience (of individuals, of social groups, of speech communities) differs => assume that conceptualization will

differ, too => TE is impossible

Within cogn ling-cs:Exp is seen as a continuum:individual universal

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(culture-specific experiences)

- such a model corresponds to conceptualization in L: the closer to the universal a concept is, the easier to

understand it and the more likely it is to become part of conventional imagery

Ppl share capacity for conceptualization (even through diff conceptual systems) there exists a common pool ofexperience (e.g. sensation, bodily exp)

=> the diff in experience is not a barrier to understanding

BUT understanding does not equal tr-ing:und = matching concepts to experience, while T = mapping concepts to exp to L!

=> Non-equivalent T may result from:

- lack of understanding by the Trr

- objective impossibility to bridge the conceptual gap b/n the two Ls

How do we decide when a t-n is not adequate/ equivalent and why there is such an objective impossibility ~?

- cogn ling-cs works with basic level Ms (situated at the centre of a category e.g. the M of chairis

a basic level M ofarmchair) at this level E is easiest to achieve

Elzbieta Tabakowska

Focusing on content and shape what or how?Cogn ling-cs tries to show what to do when conceptual systems differ:

E.g.: diminutives when trying to be polite => concept small and nice ? Do you want a cig/ a fag (GB)?

a colourful book

whispered out of the room, a Rolce Royce of a man => concept: moving without speaking, discreet,

unobtrusive, majestic

21


22/25

(out of the record: : -! .

)

t-n: basic level T. It is not the size that is relevant, but the luxury aspect of the car;

unobtrusive, but you cannot not notice him

CHARACTER PORTRAYALThe preservation of an image in T may require verbalization of a word diff from the original.

Two models:- one-domain mapping describing situations in one domain

- iconic He sat on a chair

- non-iconic He chaired a meeting

(metonymical) predicate-splitting mapping:

- adv functioning as gram Subj:Nightfall found us two km from the village.

- time-coordinate taken out: The breaking of the war found me working in

- two-domain mapping relations among elements comp to a situation in another domain

(metaphorical) when we have similarity b/n argument or predicate and its counterpart in the other domain:lakes of time

The use of cognitive and experiential models can help us account for the response of the reader. Configuration ofexplicit and implicit features can help us predict similarity and effect.

Definition (Aleksieva):

Two texts are tr-ally equivalent if the functional content of the SL text as a hierarchically layered str-re of diff types

of M with one of them playing the dominant part and contextually determined is preserved by rendering the RL

(receptor L) text in such a way as to fit the cognitive and experiential models typical of the RL, thus ensuring an

adequate interpretation of this functional content.

(off the record: Looks a bit daunting, but only at first glance, )

(off the record: at the exam account of definitions, not verbatim quotes! now this is

metaphorical mapping per se!!! understanding one thing by ways of another)

Sweitzer

Every text is characterized by three types of M. Usually only one is dominant the functional content is

hierarchically arranged, depending on the context. This hierarchical str-re needs to be preserved so as to be

understood.

Diff L users see the world in diff ways => the Ttext should be adequate with the way n which the user of the RL

views the world

not adequate to the experiential models of Bulgarians

=> TE

8. Evaluation of T. Criteria in evaluation. Adequate/ literal/ free T

Irji Vevi

T cannot be studied within the framework of ling-c choice of interpretation. How we transfer reality in the original

are aspects analyzed in the framework of art. We have to consider the relation b/n T and other arts. The aim of theTrr is to preserve and render the original, to recreate what has been depicted in the original. The means of

expression is what the Trr creates with. T is a reproduction of the contents. T is closest to acting. The actor

transforms a Lit character into a stage character, the Trr transfers from one ling-c s-m into another.

Evaluation criteria:

22


23/25

I. Fidelity values are determined by the degree to which a given work conforms to the norms of the genre.

Reproductive art is guided by reproduction and aesthetic beauty.

Reconciliation in realistic T it should possess both qualities. The norm of fidelity should be approached in

terms of the way reality is represented in the original. A work of Lit selects certain features of reality and

combines them to create a certain impression. Fidelity is related to the cognitive value of the Lit work.

T is not the original equal, but it should raise the same response. The reader is likely to misunderstand the

info contained in the text. What needs to be preserved is the aesthetic value and M of the original byaesthetic and non-aesthetic means.

The preservation of style is not always possible. There are two approaches:

1. foreignisation preservation of the formal devices of the original one and the same form can beperceived in different ways

2. domestication using stylistic devices typical of the TL (the concepts behind the ling-c deviceshave the same cognitive value)

We need to look at original writing how the author describes a certain portion of reality. (E.g. they might use

antiquated L to lend certain flavour)

II. The aesthetic norm often Trr-s correct the original to embellish it, to show off their mastery. This has

dual nature. Fidelity and beauty are seen as mutually exclusive, but if beauty is equated with embellishment or

if fidelity is seen as literal rendering, then The quality of a t-n is measured by the way the Trr uses thismethod.

Barhudarov

- remains in the sphere of ling-c Lit T guided by the norm of fidelity of Levi.

- the t-n executed on a level lower than necessary.

E.g. is the necessary level is the phrase, the t-n is executed on the level of the word:

May I smoke? Go ahead! -- ! Literal T here is inadmissible it violates the norms of the TL.

-Free T guided by the norm of beautyI kissed her. - - .

It does not violate the norms of the TL, so its more admissible.

Nida

All good t-ns tend to be longer than the original. The Trr wants evth to be explicated.

There are two dimensions of a message: length and difficulty

________ \ \length I I \______ the message cannot _________________ \_____

I I ______ pass through length I_________________I __I________I / the channel, so difficulty /difficulty / we make it /

longer

Two types of expansion: syntactic and semantic

Alexieva

Four types of rendering implicit constructions :

1. by using the same implicit str-re and the same indicator isomorphism (very rare)

23


24/25

2. same implicit str-re but diff indicators. An indicator suggests the presence of implicit factors thatthere is sth that is not verbalized

3. preservation of the implicit characteristic of the utterance by a diff implicit str-re

4. shift from implication to explication evth implicit in the original is explicit in the t-nPreservation of the pragmatic component as a whole. In the cognitive approach we should look at the sem level (the

content). A t-n is adequate if the functional content is preserved and if the t-n fits the cognitive and experiential

models of the receivers. (see functonalism and cognitive approach)

Juliane House

Concerned with context and T how are info, ideas, experience conveyed that are contextual? Interpersonal

relationships are important.

Two kinds of T metod:

1. covert T the Trr wants to produce a text relevant to the target reader. To achieve functional E, thereshould be nth more to show that this is a t-n

2. overt T appropriate in advertising, technical material. Method used for texts embedded in the sourceculture, never meant to be translated. Preserve the function. It may contain foreign aspects the Trr shouldeliminate. In historic sermons, great political speeches ok.

9. T Typology. Prototypology.Textual worlds: text types in the different spheres of communication.

Its purpose is to establish the differences and similarities among diff kinds of texts.

Categorization has been done on 2 principles: classical and scalar

10. T as intercultural communication

Culture enables us to make sense of our surroundings. It is a multidimensional complex. Any description of culture

should include artifacts, concepts, behaviours.

Characteristics of culture:1. culture is learned from infancy on people learn their pattern of behaviour. Culture happens

through observation, interaction and imitation2. culture is transmissible we can pass on the contents and patterns of culture by means of symbols

(e.g. shaking hands)3. culture is dynamic culture is subject to change; ideas and products evolve within culture and they

produce change. Invention of new practices, tools, concepts. (the internet, womens involvement in the USA)

diffusion: borrowing from another culture (e.g. the increasing commerce b/n Japan and the USA produced

changes in both cultures)

Values, ethic, work and leisure, freedom, the importance of the past, religious practices elements deeply

embedded in the str-re of a culture can change.

4. culture is selective every culture selects a limited number of behaviour patterns what to wear,

how to reach God

5. the facets of culture are interrelated

6. culture is ethnocentric ethnocentrism is a universal tendency to put ones culture in a centralposition, the perceptual window through which a culture interprets other cultures

7. culture is a multiplicity of systems culture should not be identified with natural culture; it is not a

monolythical entity

Co-cultures for separate groups in society they differ in experience, world-view, etc

Three aspects of culture: perception, verbal processes and non-verbal processes.

Intercultural communication

24


25/25

T as and act of ICC

25

osn,na prevoda pomagalo com(1)

Documents