equivalence defines translation

626 views
531 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
626
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

equivalence defines translation

  1. 1. Traducción IIDocente: Lic. Carlo EspinozaEstudiantes :Tania De la Cruz Calderón Adriana Ríos Raygada Tarapoto - Perú 2012
  2. 2. INDEX• EQUIVALENCE DEFINES TRANLATION……………………….3• EQUIVALENCE COULD BE ALL THINGS TO ALL THEORISTS……………………………………………………………………………..4• EQUIVALENCE IS DIRECTIONAL AND SUBJECTLES…………………………………………………………………..8• VALUE IS AN ECONOMIC TERM……………………………………….15• EQUIVALENCE IS AN ECONOMIC TERM……………………..24• EQUIVALENCE IS NOT A NATURAL RELATION BETWEEN SYSTEMS………………………………………………………………28• EQUIVALENCE HAS BECOME UNFASHIONABLE……….32• CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………..37• BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………..38
  3. 3. EQUIVALENCE COULD BE ALLTHINGS TO ALL THEORISTSEquivalence has been extensively usedto define translation, but few writershave been prepared to defineequivalence itself. The term wouldappear to be the great empty sign ofsuch exercises.
  4. 4. Historical research is of little avail here.The brief survey offered by Wilss(1982, 134-135) simply presents guessessuggesting that the English term"equivalence" entered translation studiesfrom mathematics, that it was originallyassociated with research into machinetranslation, and that it has or shouldhave a properly technical sense.
  5. 5. EQUIVALENCE IS DIRECTIONAL AND SUBJECTLES DEFINITION OF TRANSLATION: Interlingual Translation may be translation can be defined as follows: defined as the the replacement of replacement of textual material in elements of one one language (SL) by language. equivalent material in another language (TL).”
  6. 6. Translating  Translation leads from consists in a source-language text reproducing in to a target-language the receptor text which is as close language the an equivalent as closest natural possible and equivalent of the presupposes an source-language understanding of the message.” content and style of the original.”
  7. 7. Taking all of this together, we find that the term equivalence is commonly associated with the end result of translating as a one- way process occurring in an apparently subjectless place. Equivalence is directional and subjectless.
  8. 8. EQUIVALENCE IS ASYMMETRICALAlthough “value” is generally not atechnical term in contemporarytranslation studies, it does makefrequent and prolonged appearances inSaussure’s Course de linguistiquegénérale, widely held to be one of thefoundational texts of modern linguisticsand often cited in arguments againsttranslatability.
  9. 9. It is then not surprising thatSaussure’s synchroniclinguistics excludes not onlyquestions of equivalence butalso all reference to one-wayprocesses and to places oflesser dimensions than tongues. Saussure does nottalk about translation. Forexample:
  10. 10. He chooses not to tell us thatthe difference in value between“sheep” and “mutton” is due tothe historical situation in whichAnglo-Saxon servants presentedwhat they called “sceap” to theirNorman masters, who called thesame object “moton”.
  11. 11. VALUE IS AN ECONOMIC TERMScant attention has been paid to the fact that Saussure’s uses of the term “value”— and indeed his fundamental distinction between synchronic and diachronic linguistics—were developed from analogies with economics, or more precisely from comparisons with the most prestigious social sciences of his day, political economy and economic history:
  12. 12. • “Here [in linguistics] as in political economy we are confronted with the notion of value; both sciences are concerned with a system for equating things of different orders—labor and wages in one, and a signified and a signifier in the other.”
  13. 13. According to Saussure, labor is to wageswhat the signified is to the signifier.But are these things of differentorders really being “equated”? Aneconomist who equated the value ofwages with the value of labor would notget very far when trying to explainprofits or capitalism.
  14. 14. David Ricardo giving textbookexamples in 1812: “Water and air are abundantly useful; they are indeed indispensable to existence, yet, under ordinary circumstances, nothing can be obtained in exchange for them.
  15. 15. Gold, on the contrary, though of little use compared with air or water, will exchange for a great quantity of other goods. Utility then is not the measure of exchangeable value, although it is absolutely essential to it.”
  16. 16. EQUIVALENCE IS AN ECONOMIC TERMThere is undoubtedly a certainideological underpinning to approacheswhich see translation as a mode ofrelation between social systems andstress twentieth century use-valuetheories of “equivalent effects”.
  17. 17. If we now write “transferred text” (Y) and “translated text” (TT) in the place of “linen” and “coat”—not entirely metaphorically, since some texts are indeed bought and sold, and weaving can be as textual as it is textile That is, equivalence can be defined in terms of exchange value, expressed as a relationship between texts (TT:Y) and determined in the specific locus of the translator as a silent trader. This is what was being said but not heard.
  18. 18. EQUIVALENCE IS NOT A NATURAL RELATION BETWEEN SYSTEMS The suggestion that equivalence-based definitions of translation unwittingly define their object in terms of simple exchange could justify common usages of the word “equivalence”, but it by no means justifies all that is said by the contemporary theories incorporating these definitions.
  19. 19. Marx’s critique of use value is perhaps more interesting than the twentieth centuryabstractions that have followedhim. He saw exchange not as a capitalist plot, but as a result of concrete intercultural communication:
  20. 20. EQUIVALENCE HAS BECOME UNFASHIONABLE One of the paradoxical effects of thehistorical increase in interculturalcommunications is that, through the riseof non-linguistic cultural and historicalstudies, there is nowadays declininginterest in translational equivalence.
  21. 21. CONCLUSION Equivalence thus neither descends from above nor blossoms from the soil. It is a fiction without natural correlative beyond the communication situation. Yet naturalist assumptions continue to obfuscate its role as an active mode of interrelation.
  22. 22. BIBLIOGRAPHYhttp://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/publications/T TT_2010.pdf

×