6. T h e s t r u c t u r a l o r
c o n n o t a t i v e a n a l y s i s
.
useful in cases where the exact sense of the ST is
in doubt or in lexicographical or terminological
work where a precise definition or division of
meaning is essential prior to a mapping on to TL
terms.
often there are fuzzy boundaries between
members of groups which cloud the issue.
(Labov, 1973)
Ex: term cup, which glass, which mug, which
bowl.
7. Tendency for translation
Focus on the core meanings, to
resort more frequently to
generic nouns such as the fact,
issue,matter, etc, or to use
explicitation
A foreign word is borrowed into the TL where no such item or concept existed
For instance, tsunami or sushi which have been imported from Japanese,
8. David McDuff (Dostoyevsky 1991:339).
the new translation :
geographical, political or genre considerations
may determine the translation.
9. KINSHIP TERMS
Cultural Knowledge is
essential order to draw
up the list of
relationships
.
lineal (e.g. mother), colineal (e.g. aunt) and
ablineal (e.g. cousin)
common problem,
Require
disambiguation.
In Yoruba, the major language of
South-West Nigeria, has two words
for the relationship of brother, namely
egbon (elder brother) and aburo
(younger brother).
10. Collocation
Larson (1984/1998:155–67)
Translation requires the strength of
collocation to be identified in the ST
and conveyed satisfactorily in the TT..
.
In English, to borrow the well-known
example from Leech (1981:17), pretty
woman is a typical (or strong) collocation,
and so is handsome man. This does not
mean that handsome woman or pretty
man is impossible, just that they are very
unusual or marked.
Refers to the way that words are
typically used together.
Collocation grown in importance with the
growth of corpus linguistics, the computer-
assisted study of electronic databases
(corpora) of naturally occurring texts
A concordance displays examples of the search term in the centre
with a certain amount of context either side ordered alphabetically
according to the first word right or left of the search term.
Larson considers collocation primarily as a formal,
structural device, looking at fixed combinations
(bread and butter, black and white), including
idioms, and the ‘restrictions’ on the collocational
range of a word which ‘only a native speaker of the
language can judge’ (1984/1998:160).
11. semantic prosody
( L o u w 1 9 9 3 ) . the positive or negative
connotative meaning
which is
transferred to the focus
word by the semantic
fields of its common
collocates.
12. Conclusion:
This unit has examined various attempts, adapted from
English semantics, to examine meaning scientifically. The
underlying assumption was that meaning is observable
and measurable, and transferable in translation. The aim
of these attempts was to assist the decision-making of the
translator. However, there are many other factors that
affect meaning and determine the choice of translation.
These include the linguistic co-text and the context in
which the TT is to function.
14. Anything which can be said in one language can be said in
another language, unless the form is an essential element of the
message, (Nida & Taber, 1969)
Literal translation
Formal equivalence
Dynamic equivalence
15. Literal Translation
Literal translation tends to preserve formal features almost
by default (i.e. with little or no regard for the context,
meaning or what is implied by a given utterance), a ‘formal’
translation is almost always contextually motivated: formal
features are preserved only if they carry contextual values
that become part of the overall text meaning.
Attention on the message itself in both
form and content
To bring the target reader nearer to the
linguistic or cultural preferences of the
ST
17. Dynamic Equivalence
Dynamic form of equivalence – they can
express a rich variety of contextual values
and effects which literal translation would
simply compromise.
We opt for varying degrees of dynamic equivalence when form is
not significantly involved in conveying a particular meaning and
when a formal rendering is therefore unnecessary.
18. Dynamic and formal equivalence are points on
cline.
The two methods are not absolute technique but
rather general orientations.
Experienced translators resort to a formal rendering
of the ST most of the time, then they reconsider their
decisions and make their definitive choice.
19. Eugene A. Nida, Toward a Science of Translating,
1964
Messages differ primarily in the degree to which content or form is
the dominant consideration. Of course, the content of the message
can never be completely abstracted from the form and form is nothing
apart from content: but in some messages the content is of primary
consideration, and in others the form must be given a higher priority.
20. A translator’s purpose may involve much more than information. He/she
may, for example, want to suggest a particular type of behavior by means
of a translation. Under such circumstance he is likely to aim at full
intelligibility and to make certain minor adjustments in detail so that the
reader may understand the full implications of the message for his own
circumstance.
In such situation a translator is not content to have receptors say:
‘This is intelligible to us’. Rather, he is looking for some such
response as, ‘ This is meaningful for us’.
22. Formal
equivalence
It focuses all attention on the message itself, in both form and content
The message in the receptor language should match as closely
as possible the different element in the source language
Gloss translation (footnotes)
A gloss translation of this type is designed to permit the reader to
identify himself as fully as possible with a person in the source-
language context, and to understand as much as he can of the
customs, manner of thought and means of expression.
E.g.
Holy kiss (Romans 16: 16)
23. Dynamic
equivalence
It based upon the equivalent effect
The relationship between receptor and message should
be substantially the same as that which existed between
the original receptors and the message.
A translation of dynamic equivalence aims at the complete
naturalness of expression, and tries to relate the receptor to modes of
behavior relevant within the context of his own cultural patterns of the
source-language context in order to comprehend the message.
J.B Phillips
‘Greet one another with a holy kiss’
‘ Give one another a hearty handshake all around’
24. The Translation Process
The
translator
Analyses the SL message into its
simplest and structurally clearest
forms (kernels)
Transfer the message at
this kernel level
Restructures the message in the
TL to the level which is most
appropriate for the audience
addressed
Languages agrees far more on the level of the
kernels than on the level of the more elaborate
structures
Kernels (semantic categories):
• Object words
• Event words
• Abstracts
• Relational
25. Transfer
The analyzed material is
transferred in the mind of the
translator from language A to
language B.
Reconfiguration in the TL of
sets of SL semantic and
structural component.
Restructures
Procedures
Stylistic from appropriate to
the receptor language and
to the intended receptors’
Adjustments
- Redundancy
- Gist
27. Translating
Reproducing in the receptor
language the closest natural
equivalent of the message of the
source language, first in terms of
meaning and the second in terms
of style
29. Some of the contexts appropriate for
formal equivalence through which the
translator seeks to reflect in a motivated
manner the linguistic or rhetorical
prominence of an ST element
EQUIVALENCE
OF TEXTS
COMPLEX
DECISION-
MAKING
DECISION-
MAKING: THE
TEXT FACTOR
30. COMPLEX DECISION-MAKING
- Translation involves a complex process of ‘decision-making’, where
decisions are hierarchical and iterative, of the kind we saw with Koller’s
equivalence relations
- It is safe to assume that,instinctively,translators start out with the most basic
forms of what Koller calls ‘formal equivalence’
- It is only when the literal proves insufficient that resort is made to other kinds
of equivalence relations.
- Decision-making is less straightforward than this ‘sequential’ model seems to
indicate
- several factors play a role in the decision-making characteristic of translation
as a process. These include:
1. aesthetics (e.g.translator’s ‘aesthetic standards’);
2. cognition (e.g.translator’s ‘cognitive system’);
3. knowledge base (i.e.epistemology);
4. task specification (e.g.agreed with clients).
31. Factors such as the kind of language appropriate to a given situation and
the type of text or communicative act in question,which Koller discusses
under normative equivalence,are crucial in translational decision-making
A consideration of the kind of constraints under which translators operate in
attempting to determine the types of resemblance that are most crucial for a
given text/context in translation
On both sides of the linguisticcultural divide,these constraints have to do
with :
preference for a given text type
the nature of the communicative event
the kind of reader
EQUIVALENCE OF TEXTS
32. DECISION-MAKING: THE TEXT FACTOR
• This disparity is to do with the issue of what we choose to make salient from
the perspective ofa particular language and culture
• The equivalencesought in this area ofvarying linguistic and/or conceptual
prominence would be of a text-normative and pragmatic kind
• In well-written texts, prominence is often functional, that is, purposeful
within the text
• This leads us to a consideration of the kind of constraints under which we
operate in attempting to determine the types of resemblance that are most
crucial for a given text/context in translation
