Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






Problem of equivalency in translation

 

Theory of equivalence has been studied scientifically from the beginning of the second half of the 20th century up to now. Translational equivalence is the similarity between a word (or expression) in one language and its translation in another. If a specific linguistic unit in one language carries the same intended meaning / message encoded in a specific linguistic medium in another, then these two units are considered to be equivalent. The domain of equivalents covers linguistic units such as morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, idioms and proverbs. So, finding equivalents is the most problematic stage of translation. It is worth mentioning, however, it is not meant that the translator should always find one-to-one categorically or structurally equivalent units in the two languages, that is, sometimes two different linguistic units in different languages carry the same function. The term «equivalent translation» is nowadays practically used in the same meaning as «faithful translation» with one exception only: it also includes the necessity of quantitative and qualitative representation of all constitutive parts or elements of the source language units in the target language. Equivalent can also be considered the translation of the following English sentence which maintains in Ukrainian its main constituent parts, its content, expressiveness and picturesqueness.

Jakobson and Equivalence in Difference

He suggested three kinds of equivalence known as:

-Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or paraphrase)

-Interlingual (between two languages)

-Intersemiotic (between sign systems)

Nida: Formal Equivalence vs. Dynamic Equivalence

Two different types of equivalence. Namely formal equivalence- which in the second edition by Nida is referred to as formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence. Formal correspondence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content, unlike dynamic equivalence which is based upon the principle of equivalent effect.

Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the closest equivalent of a SL word or phrase. Nida makes it clear that there are not always formal equivalents between language pairs he therefore suggest that these formal equivalents should be used wherever possible if the translation aims at achieving formal rather than dynamic equivalence. The use of formal equivalents might at times have serious implications in the TT since the translation will not be easily understood by the target audience.

Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation principle according to which a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the TL wording will trigger the same impact on the original wording did upon the ST audience.

House and Overt and Covert Translation and Equivalence

House (1977) discussed the concept of overt and covert translations. In an overt translation the TT audience is not directly addressed and there is therefore no need at all to attempt to recreate a second original since an overt translation must overtly be a translation. By covert translation, on the other hand, is meant the production of a text which is functionally equivalent to the ST. House also argues that in this type of translation the ST is not specifically addressed to a TC audience.



Baker's Approach towards Equivalence

Baker (1992) defined four kinds of equivalents as follows:

-Equivalence that can appear at word level and above word level, when translating from one language into another.

-Grammatical equivalence, when referring to the diversity of grammatical categories across languages.

-Textual equivalence when referring to the equivalence between a SL text and a TL text in terms of information and cohesion.

-Pragmatic equivalence, when referring to imprimaturs and strategies of avoidance during the translation process.

Vinay and Darbelnet and Their Equivalence Definition

Vinay and Darbelnet (1995) view equivalence-oriented translation as a procedure which replicates the same situation as in the original, whilst using completely different wording. They also suggest that, if this procedure is applied during the translation process, it can maintain the stylistic impact of the SL text in the TL text.

Catford and Translation Shift and Equivalence

Catford (1996) in the revision of his book introduced a very perfect taxonomy towards translation.

Cartford's approach to translation equivalence clearly differs from that adopted by Nida since Catford had a preference for a more linguistic-based approach to translation and this approach is based on the linguistic work of Firth and Halliday. His main contribution in the field of translation theory is the introduction of the concepts of types and shifts translation. Catfrod proposed very broad types translation in terms of three criteria:

1. The extent of translation (full translation vs partial translation).

2. The grammatical rank at which the translation equivalence is established (rank bound translation vs. unbounded translation).

3. The levels of language involved in translation (total translation vs. restricted translation).

 

 

19.

20.

 

 


 

 


Date: 2015-04-20; view: 2684


<== previous page | next page ==>
Main types of translation | Where have all the criminals gone
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.008 sec.)