Word for word translation theory - Word и Excel - помощь в работе с программами

Word-for-word
translation is another method of rendering sense.
It presents a consecutive verbal translation though at the level of
word-groups and sentences. This way of translation is often employed
both consciously and subconsciously by students in the process
of translating alien grammatical constructions/word forms. Sometimes
students at the initial stage of learning a foreign language may
employ
this way of translation even when dealing with seemingly common
phrases or sentences, which are structurally different from their
equivalents in the native tongue. Usually the students employ
word-for-word
translation to convey the sense of word-groups or sentences which
have a structural form, the order of words, and the means of
connection
quite different from those in the target language. To achieve
faithfulness
various grammtical in translation, word-for-word variants are
to be corrected to avoid various grammatical violations made by the
inexperienced students. Cf. You
are right to begin with*BU маєте
рацію,
щоб
почати
з
instead of Почнемо
з
того/припустимо,
що
ви
маєте
рацію/що
ви
праві.

Interlinear translation.

The
interlinear¹
way/method of translating is
a conventional
term for a strictly faithful rendering of sense expressed by
word-groups
and sentences at the level of some text. The
method
of interlinear translation may be practically applied to all speech
units(sentences, super syntactic units, passages). Interlinear
translation always provides a completely faithful conveying only of
content, which is often achieved through various transformations of
structure of many sense units.

Interlinear
translating is widely practiced at the intermediary and
advanced stages of studying a foreign language. It is helpful when
checking up the students’ understanding of certain structurally
peculiar
English sense units in the passage under translation.
The interlinear method of translating helps the student to obtain
the necessary training in rendering the main aspects of the foreign
language.

The
method
of interlinear translation is practically employed when rendering
some passages or works for internal office use in scientific/research
centers and laboratories and other organizations and by students in
their translation
practice

Literary translation.

Literary
translating represents the highest level of translator’s activity.
Literary translators in addition to dealing with the difficulties
inherent to translations
of all fields, must consider the aesthetic aspects of the text, its
beauty and style, as well as its marks (lexical, grammatical or
phonological) keeping in mind that one language’s stylistic marcs
can be different from another’s. the important idea is that the
quality of the translation
be the same in both languages while also maintaining the integrity of
the contents at the same time.

For
a translator, the fundamental issue is searching for equivalents that
produce the same effects in the translated text as those that the
author was seeking for readers of the original text.

Literary
artistic translation
presents a faithful transmission of content and of the artistic
merits only of a work.

Literary
translations are always performed in literary all-nation languages
and with many transformations which help achieve the ease and beauty
of
the original composition.

When
the SL and TL belong to different cultural groups the first problem
faced by the translator is finding terms in his own language that
express
the highest level of faithfulness possible to the meaning of certain
worlds.

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

Источник

Advantages and disadvantages of Word for Word Translation

Word for word translation or literal translation is the rendering of text from one language to another one word at a time with or without conveying the sense of the original text. In translation studies, literal translation is often associated with scientific, technical, technological or legal texts.

A bad practice

It is often considered a bad practice of conveying word by word translation in non-technical texts. This usually refers to the mistranslation of idioms that affects the meaning of the text, making it unintelligible. The concept of literal translation may be viewed as an oxymoron (contradiction in terms), given that literal denotes something existing without interpretation, whereas a translation, by its very nature, is an interpretation (an interpretation of the meaning of words from one language into another).

Usage

A word for word translation can be used in some languages and not others dependent on the sentence structure: El equipo está trabajando para terminar el informe would translate into English as The team is working to finish the report. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. For example, the Spanish sentence above could not be translated into French or German using this technique because the French and German sentence structures are completely different. And because one sentence can be translated literally across languages does not mean that all sentences can be translated literally.

Literal translation can also denote a translation that represents the precise meaning of the original text but does not attempt to convey its style, beauty, or poetry. There is, however, a great deal of difference between a literal translation of a poetic work and a prose translation. A literal translation of poetry may be in prose rather than verse, but also be error free. Charles Singleton’s translation of The Divine Comedy (1975) is regarded as a prose translation.

Machine Translation

Early machine translations were famous for this type of translation because they simply created a database of words and their translations. Later attempts utilized common phrases which resulted in better grammatical structure and capture of idioms but with many words left in the original language.

The systems that we use nowadays are based on a combination of technologies and apply algorithms to correct the “natural” sound of the translation. However, professional translation agencies that use machine translation create a rough translation first that is then tweaked by a professional translator.

Mistakes and Jokes

Literal translation of idioms results quite often in jokes and amusement among translators and not only. The following famous example has often been told both in the context of newbie translators and that of machine translation: When the sentence “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak was translated into Russian and then back to English, the result was “The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten. This is generally believed to be simply an amusing story, and not a factual reference to an actual machine translation error.

No spam, we promise.

Since an early age I have been passionate about languages. I hold a Master’s degree in Translation and Interpreting, and I have worked as a freelance translator for several years. I specialize in Marketing, Digital Marketing, Web and Social Media. I love blogging and I also run the blog www.italiasocialmedia.com

Источник

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Literal translation, direct translation or word-for-word translation, is a translation of a text done by translating each word separately, without looking at how the words are used together in a phrase or sentence.^[1]

In translation theory, another term for «literal translation» is metaphrase (as opposed to paraphrase for an analogous translation).

Literal translation leads to mistranslation of idioms, which was once a serious problem for machine translation.^[2]

The term as used in translation studies[edit]

Usage[edit]

The term «literal translation» often appeared in the titles of 19th-century English translations of classical, Bible and other texts.

Cribs[edit]

Word-for-word translations («cribs,» «ponies» or «trots») are sometimes prepared for a writer who is translating a work written in a language they do not know. For example, Robert Pinsky is reported to have used a literal translation in preparing his translation of Dante’s Inferno (1994), as he does not know Italian.^{[citation needed]} Similarly, Richard Pevear worked from literal translations provided by his wife, Larissa Volokhonsky, in their translations of several Russian novels.^{[citation needed]}

Poetry to prose[edit]

Literal translation can also denote a translation that represents the precise meaning of the original text but does not attempt to convey its style, beauty, or poetry. There is, however, a great deal of difference between a literal translation of a poetic work and a prose translation. A literal translation of poetry may be in prose rather than verse, but also be error free. Charles Singleton’s translation of the Divine Comedy (1975) is regarded as a prose translation.

As bad practice[edit]

«Literal» translation implies that it is probably full of errors, since the translator has made no effort to (or is unable to) convey correct idioms or shades of meaning, for example, but it can also be a useful way of seeing how words are used to convey meaning in the source language.

Examples[edit]

A literal English translation of the German phrase «Ich habe Hunger» would be «I have hunger» in English, but this is clearly not a phrase that would generally be used in English, even though its meaning might be clear. Literal translations in which individual components within words or compounds are translated to create new lexical items in the target language (a process also known as “loan translation”) are called calques, e.g., “beer garden” from German “biergarten.”

The literal translation of the Italian sentence, «So che questo non va bene» («I know that this is not good»), produces «Know(I) that this not goes(it) well,» which has English words and Italian grammar.

Machine translation[edit]

Early machine translations (as of 1962^[2] at least) were notorious for this type of translation, as they simply employed a database of words and their translations. Later attempts utilized common phrases which resulted in better grammatical structure and capture of idioms, but with many words left in the original language. For translating synthetic languages, a morphosyntactic analyzer and synthesizer is required.

The best systems today use a combination of the above technologies and apply algorithms to correct the «natural» sound of the translation. In the end, though, professional translation firms that employ machine translation use it as a tool to create a rough translation that is then tweaked by a human, professional translator.

Douglas Hofstadter gave an example for the failures of a machine translation: The English sentence «In their house, everything comes in pairs. There’s his car and her car, his towels and her towels, and his library and hers.» is translated into French as «Dans leur maison, tout vient en paires. Il y a sa voiture et sa voiture, ses serviettes et ses serviettes, sa bibliothèque et les siennes.» That does not make sense, because the literal translation of both «his» and «hers» into French is «sa» in case of singular, and «ses» in case of plural, therefore the French version is not understandable.^[3]

Pidgins[edit]

Often, first-generation immigrants create something of a literal translation in how they speak their parents’ native language. This results in a mix of the two languages in something of a pidgin. Many such mixes have specific names, e.g. Spanglish or Denglisch. For example, American children of German immigrants are heard using «rockingstool» from the German word «schaukelstuhl» instead of «rocking chair».

Translator’s humor[edit]

Literal translation of idioms is a source of translators’ jokes and apocrypha. The following has often been told in relation to inexperienced translators or to machine translations: When the sentence, «The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak» («дух бодр, плоть же немощна«, an allusion to Mark 14:38) was translated into Russian and then back into English, the result was «The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten» («водка хорошая, но мясо протухло«). This is generally believed to be an amusing apocrypha rather than a reference to an actual machine-translation error.^[2]

References[edit]

^ «LITERAL | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary». dictionary.cambridge.org. Retrieved 2019-09-21.
^ ^a ^b ^c Hutchins, John (June 1995). ««The whisky was invisible», or Persistent myths of MT» (PDF). MT News International (11): 17–18. Archived from the original on 3 January 2021. Retrieved 16 February 2022.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
^ Hofstadter, Douglas (30 January 2018). «The Shallowness of Google Translate». The Atlantic. Retrieved 16 February 2022.

Parker Sante’s explanation on Transliteration vs Translation

A transliteration is a word-for-word translation from one language to another.

A translation is what it would sound like in common speak.

Say you wanted to translate “la madre de mi madre es mi abuela” into English.

The transliteration would be “the mom of my mom is my grandmother”, which sounds kind of clunky.

Let’s fix that up. The translation would be “my mom’s mom is my grandmother”, which sounds like more actual normal English. The transliteration issue results from the fact that contractions don’t exist in Spanish, so the transliteration is changed to accommodate it.

P.S. “Transliteration” is the representation of sounds in a source language (SL) in the phonetic notation of the target language (TL). So when we talk about the capital of Japan we talk about “Tokyo”. That is a transliteration into the Roman letters of the English alphabet of the Japanese word 東京. If we were to translate that word it would be “East Capital” but generally we don’t translate proper nouns — Chris Poole

See Chris Poole’s cool explanation on the difference of word-for-word translation and literal translation.

Tatum Derin consistently writes research with her team who equally loves writing too. A research assistant who loves to hunt for stories and opportunities. A nerdfighter who likes to spend time reading about the science of language and outer space, and geeks with fellow Anime fans (definitely One Piece and Attack on Titan!). Adores tear-jerking family movies badly (and Billie Eilish level of horror).
View all posts by Tatum Derin

Источник

First off, some data:

According to COCA word-for-word has 60 usages, 3 of them are «word-for-word translation». Word-by-word has 26 usages, none of them are «word-by-word translation» (but some with «transcription»).

The definition of word-for-word:

Oxford: In exactly the same or, when translated, exactly equivalent words
Merriam-Webster: being in or following the exact words, verbatim
The Free Dictionary: one word at a time, without regard for the sense of the whole

Only the last dictionary contains a definition for word-by-word, too:

The Free Dictionary: one word at a time

The definitions given by The Free Dictionary are, obviously, identical to each other.

Google hits:
Word-for-word ~21m
Word-for-word translation ~318k
Word-by-word ~3.8m
Word-by-word translation ~95k

According to usages and dictionaries word-by-word is, at least, less popular. And assuming that there may be a lot of usages from non-natives among the Google hits, this could be an indicator for word-by-word being even utterly wrong.

In another forum I found the following statement:

When I translate something «literally,» (wörtlich) it still follows the main rules of the language I’m translating into. What you mean is «word-by-word» (wortwörtlich) to me.

I assume that this was written by a German but I don’t know it. However, if this would be true a «word-by-word translation» would be a translation where I keep, for instance, the order of the words, disregarding if it makes sense in the target language.

Some examples:

Original: word-by-word
Word-by-word translation: Wort bei Wort (That’s a terrible translation!)

Original: It is critical to know…
Word-by-word translation: Es ist kritisch zu wissen… (That’s a terrible translation!)

Original: Ich glaub, ich spinne.
Word-by-word translation: I think I spider. (I guess only Germans understand this.)

A «word-for-word translation», however, would be an attempt to keep the word-choice as close as possible but following the rules of the target language (e.g. order of words) and also considering if the statement still makes sense in the other language. Here are better translations for the examples above:

Wort für Wort
Es ist wichtig zu wissen…
I think, I’m going nuts. (Actually, this is not a word-for-word translation but rather a sense-for-sense translation.)

So, my questions again:

As neither Oxford nor Merriam-Webster have any entries for word-by-word in their dictionaries: is word-by-word actually valid?
If yes, is there any difference between «word-by-word translation» and «word-for-word translation»? If yes again, what is it specifically?

Источник

Chapter 2. Translation theory before the twentieth century

KEY CONCEPT

The ‘word-for-word’ (literal) vs. ‘sense-for sense’ (free) debate

The vitalization of the vernacular: Luther and the German Bible

Key notions of ‘fidelity’, ;spirit’; and ‘truth’

The influence of Dryden and the triad of metaphrase, paraphrase, imitation

Attempts at a more systematic prescriptive approach from Dolet and Tytler

Schleiermacher: a separate language of translation and respect for the foreign

The vagueness of the terms used to describe translation

2.1 ‘Word-for-word’ or ‘sense-for-sense?’

In Roman times, word-for-word was exactly what it said. Cicero disparaged (criticize), and also Horace who is famous with his Ars Poetica. St Jerome disparaged word for word approach because it produces an absurd translation, cloaking the sense of the original. On the other hand, sense for sense, allowed the sense or content of the ST to be translated.

2.2 Martin Luther

The preoccupation of the Roman Catholic Church was for the ‘correct’ established meaning of the Bible to be transmitted. Any translation diverging(different) from the accepted interpretation was likely to be deemed heretical and be censured or banned. Non literal or non-accepted translation came to be seen and be used as a weapon against the church.

MARTIN LUTHER influenced translation into East Middle German of New Testament (1522)

2.3 Faithfulness, spirit and truth

FLORA AMOS, sees the theory of translation in her “Early Theory of Translation” as by no means a record of easily distinguishable, orderly progression” . Amos notes that early translator often differed considerably in the meaning they gave to terms such as faithfulness, accuracy and the word ‘translation’ itself.

LOUIS KELLY looks in detail at the history of translation theory, starting with the teaching of the writers of Antiquity and tracing the history of inextricably tangled term FIDELITY (the faithful interpreter avoid word-for-word. SPIRIT (creative energy or inspiration), TRUTH (having the sense of content)

2.4 Early attempts at systemic translation theory: Dryden, Dolet and Tytler

à Free approach to translation by English poet and translator JOHN DRYDEN

(1) METAPHRASE: word-for-word and line-by-line translation, which correspond to literal translation;

(2) PARAPHRASE: translation with latitude (freedom), where the author is kept in view by the translator, so as never to be lost, but his words are not so strictly followed by his sense; this involves changing whole phrases and more or less corresponds to faithful or sense-for-sense translation.

(3) IMITATION: forsaking (leave) both word and sense; this correspond to Cowley’s very free translation and is more or less adapatation.

ETIENNE DOLET, set out 5 principles in order of importance

(1) the translator (tt) must perfectly understand the sense and material of the original author, although he should feel free to clarify obscurities (not known/not clear)

(2) tt should have a perfect knowledge of both Sl and TL

(3) tt should avoid word-for-word renderings

(4) tt should avoid Latinate and unusual form

(5) tt should assemble and liaise word eloquently (clear) to avoid clumsiness (awkward)

TYTLER à Three general laws/rules

(1) the translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work

(2) the style and manner of writing should be the same character with that of the original

(3) The translation should have all the ease (move) of the original composition

1^st law of Tytler = 1,2 principles of Dolet à tt have a perfect knowledge

2^nd of Tytler= 5 Doletà identifying true character= correct taste

2.5 Scleiermacher and the valorization of the foreign

FRIEDRICH SCHLEIEMACHER (German theologian & translation, 1813) known as modern Protestant theology & modern HERMENEUTICS (= a Romantic approach to interpretation based not on absolute truth but on the individual’s inner feeling and understanding)

Types of translator working:

(1) DOLMETSHER: who translates commercial texts

(2) UBERSTZER: who works on scholarly & artistic texts

Chapter 3 Equivalence and equivalent effect

The problem of equivalence in meaning discussed by Jacobson (1959) and central to translation studies for two decades

Nida’s adaptation of transformational grammar model, and ‘scientific’ methods to analyze meaning in his work on Bible translating

Nida’s concepts of formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence and the principle of equivalent effect: focus on the receptor

Newmark semantic and communicative translation

3.1 Roman Jacobson: the nature of linguistic meaning and equivalence

(1) INTERLINGUAL; (2) INTRALINGUAL; (3) INTERSEMIOTIC

Jakobson follows the relation set out by SAUSSURE (SIGNIFIER = the spoken and written signal; SIGNIFIED= the concept signified(mean)). Signifier & signified form the linguistic sign, but that sign is arbitrary or unmotivated (Saussure: 1916). Jakobson consider the problem of equivalence of meaning between words in different languages. à there is ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units”

3.2 Nida and ‘the science of translating”

EUGINE NIDA (1964) describes various ‘scientific approach to meaning’, he tries to translate Bible by incorporating linguistics borrowing approach from CHOMSKY semantic and pragmatics’ work on syntactic structure which formed the theory GENERATIVE-TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR (Chomsky, 1957).

3.2.1 The nature of meaning: advances in semantics and pragmatics

Meaning is broken into LINGUISTIC MEANING (borrowing elements of Chomsky’s model) REFERENTIAL MEANING (the denotative dictionary meaning) EMOTIVE MEANING (connotative meaning). Techniques to determine inferential and emotive meaning focus on analyzing the structure of words and differentiating similar words in related lexical fields. These include

(1) HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURING (differentiates series of words according ti their level, for example superordinate ANIMAL and its hyponyms GOAT, DOG, COW) and

(2) COMPONENTIAL ANALYSIS (seek to identify and discriminate specific feature of a range of related words, for example grandmother, mother, cousin)

(3) SEMANTIC STRUCTURE ANALYSIS (separates out visually the different meanings of spirit- demon, angels- according to their characteristics-non human, good)

3.2.2 the influence of Chomsky

Chomsky generative-transformational structure model analyses sentences into a series of related levels governed by rules.

(1) DEEP STRUCTURE, phase structure rules generate and underlying which is

(2) Transformed by transformational rules relating one underlying structure to another (eg. Active to passive) to produce

(3) A final SURFACE STRUCTURE, which itself is subject to phonological and morphemic rules.

The basic structure is KERNEL SENTENCE which is simple, declarative, require the minimum of transformation. So kernels ‘are the basic structural elements out of which language builds its elaborate surface structures’ taken from ST surface structure.

3.2.3 Formal and dynamic equivalence and the principle of equivalent effect

Nida discarded the old term ‘literal, free and faithful translation. He introduce

(1) FORMAL EQUIVALENCE, focuses on the message itself in both form and content

(2) DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message. The success of translation depends on achieving equivalent response, it should cover four basic elements of translation, which are

(1) Making sense

(2) Conveying the spirit and manner of the original

(3) Having a natural and easy form of expression

(4) Producing a similar response

3.3 Newmark: semantic and communicative translation

(1) COMMUNICATIVE TRANSLATION attempts to produce its readers an effect as possible to that obtained on the readers if the original. (=Nida’s dynamic equivalence) ‘craft’

(2) 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) ‘art’

3.4 Koller: Korrespondenz and Aquivalenz

Nida’s move towards scientific translation influence Germany. Important works on equivalence was carried out by WERNER KOLLER (1979) he differentiate 5 different type of equivalence:

(1) DENOTATIVE EQUIVALENCE is related to equivalence of the extralinguistic content of a text. or ‘content invariance’

(2) CONNOTATIVE EQUIVALENCE is related to lexical choices esp. between near-synonym or ‘stylistic equivalence’

(3) TEXT-NORMATIVE EQUIVALENCE is related to text types à links to Katharina Reiss

(4) PRAGMATIC EQUIVALENCE or ‘communicative equivalence’, is oriented toward the receiver of the text or massage

(5) FORMAL EQUIVALENCE is related to form and aesthetics of the text, or ‘expressive equivalence’

Chestermen (1989) equivalence is obviously a central concept in translation theory.

Chapter 4 The Translation Shift Approach

Translation shifts= small linguistic change occurring in translation of ST to TT

Vinay and Dalbernet (1958): classical taxonomy of linguistic changes in translation

Catford (1965) term translation ‘shift’ in his linguistic approach to translation

Theoretical work by Chezh scholar Levy, Popovic, Miko (1960-1970s) who adopt stylistic and aesthetic parameters of language

Most detail model of translation shift: van Leuven-Zwart’s, an attempt to match shift to discourse and narratological function

The problem of the subjectivity of the invariant that it used to compare ST and TT

4.1 Vinay and Dalbernet’s model

Vinay and Dalbernet carried out a comparative stylistic analysis of French and English. Using the strategies DIRECT TRANSLATION and OBLIQUE TRANSLATION

DIRECT TRANSLATION

(1) BORROWING; THE SL word is transferred directly ti the TL

(2) CALQUE; special borrowing, SL expression or structure is transferred in a literal translation

(3) LITERAL TRANSLATION; word-for-word

OBLIQUE TRANSLATION

(4) TRANSPOSITION; the change of one part of speech for another without changing the sense

(5) MODULATION; change semantics and point of view of the SL

(6) EQUIVALENCE; translating idiom and proverbs

(7) ADAPTATION; a changing cultural reference when a situation in the source culture does not exist in the target culture.

Parameter

(1) SERVITUDE; refer to obligatory transposition and modulation due ti a difference between the two language system

(2) OPTION; refers to non-obligatory changes that are due to the translator’s own style and preferences

Five steps for the translator to follow in moving from ST to TT

(1) Identify the unit of translation

(2) Examine the SL text, evaluating the descriptive, affective and intellectual; content of the units

(3) Reconstruct the metalinguistic context of the message

(4) Evaluate the stylistic effects

(5) Produce and revise the TT

4.2 Catford and translation ‘shifts’

Catford follows the Firthian and Hallidayan linguistic model, which analyses language as communication, operating functionally context and on a range of different level (phonology, graphology, grammar, lexis) and ranks (sentence, group, word, morpheme). Catford makes an important distinction between formal and textual equivalence, which was later developed by Koller.

(1) FORMAL CORRESPONDENT I is any TL category (unit, class, element of structure etc.) which can be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the ‘same’ place in the ‘economy’ of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL.

(2) TEXTUAL EQUIVALENT is any TL text or portion of the text which is observed on a particular occasion … to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of a text.

The shift according to Catford

(1) A LEVEL SHIFT would be something which is expressed by grammar in one language and lexis in another

(2) A CATEGORY SHIFTS

(a) STRUCTURAL SHIFTS; shift in grammatical structure (from active to passive)

(b) CLASS SHIFTS; comprise shifts from one part of speech to another (from adjective into adverb) p.61

(d) INTRA-SYSTEM SHIFTS; this shifts take place when the SL and TL process approximately corresponding systems but where the translation involves selection of a non-corresponding term in the TL system

4.3 Czeh writing on translation shifts p. 62

CHECHOLOSVAKIA introduces a LITERARY ASPECT, of that the EXPRESSIVE FUNCTION or style of a text. LEVY looks closely at the surface structure of the ST and TT, with particular to poetry translation, and sees literary translation as both reproductive and a creative labour with the goal of equivalent aesthetic effect. He sees the real-world of translation work as being ‘pragmatic’.

4.4 Van Leuven-Zwart’s comparative-descriptive model of translation shift

Kitty van Leuven-Zwart from Amsterdam attempts to systematize comparison and to build in a discourse framework above sentence level. The model is ‘intended for the description of integral translations of fictional texts; and comprises:

(1) COMPARATIVE MODEL involves a detailed of ST and TT and a classifications of all the microstructural shifts (within sentences, clauses and phrases). The methods as follow

– Passage is divided into ‘comprehensible textual unit called TRANSEMES (she sat up quickly)

– ARCHITRANSEME invariant core sense of the ST transeme (to sit up)

– A comparison is then made of each separate transeme with the architranseme and the relationship between the two transemes in established

Main categories of van Zwart’s comparative model p.64

– MODULATION,

– MODIFICATION

– MUTATION

(2) DESCRIPTIVE MODEL is a macrostructural model, designed for the analysis of translated literature. it attempts to interweave the concepts of ‘discourse level (the linguistic expression of the fictional world) and ‘story level’ (the narration of the text, including narrational point of view) with the three linguistic metafunctions (interpersonal, ideational and textual).

Chapter 5 Functional Theories of translation

Functional theories from Germany in the 1970-1980s mark a move away from static linguistic typologies

Reiss stresses equivalence at text level, linking language functions to text types and translation strategy

Holz-Manttari’s theory of translational action: a communicative process involving a series of players

Vermeer’s skopos theory of translation strategy depending on purpose of TT is expanded in Reiss and Vermeer

Nord’s translation-oriented text analysis: a functional approach with more attention to ST

5.1 Text Type-Katharina Reiss

KATHARINA REISS builds in the concept of equivalence but views the text rather than word or sentence as the level at which communication is achieved and at which equivalence must be bought. The text types

(1) INFORMATIVE à plain communication of facts: information, knowledge, opinions (report, lecture)

(2) EXPRESSIVE à creative composition (poem) p.74

(3) OPERATIVE à including behavioral responses; the aims of the appellative function is to appeal to or persuade the reader/receiver (advertisement)

(4) AUDIOMEDIAL texts, such as films and visual and spoken advertisement

5.2 Translational Action – Holz Mantaari

Holz mantaari takes up concepts from communication theory and action theory with the aim of providing and guidelines applicable to a wide range of professional translation situations.

Interlingual translation is described as ‘translational action from a source text’ and as a communicative process involving a series of roles and players:

(1) THE INITIATOR, the company/individual who needs the translation

(2) THE COMISSIONER, the individual who contact the translator

(3) THE ST PRODUCER, the individual within the company

(4) THE TT PRODUCER, the translator

(5) THE TT USER, the person who uses the TT

(6) THE TT RECEIVER, the final recipient of the TT

Relevant features are described according to the age-old split of CONTENT (factual information and communicative strategy) and FORM (terminology and cohesive elements)

5.3 Skopos Theory –Hans J. van Vermeer

Skopos is the Greek word for ‘aim’ or ‘purpose’. the basic underlying ‘rules’ of the theory

(1) The translatum (TT) is determined by its skopos

(2) A TT is an offer information in a target culture and TL concerning an offer information in a source culture and SL

(3) A TT does not initiate an offer information in a clearly reversible way

(4) A TT must be internally coherent

(5) A TT must be coherent with the ST

(6) The five rules above stand in hierarchical order, with the skopos rule predominating (the most important)

5.4 Translation-oriented text analysis – Christine Nord

CHRISTINE NORD (1988) presents a more detailed functional model incorporating elements of text analysis which examines text organization at or above sentence level. These are known as

(1) DOCUMENTARY TRANSLATION, serves as a document of a source culture communication between the author and the ST recipient

(2) INSTRUMENTAL TRANSLATION serves as an independent message-transmitting instrument an a new communicative action in the target culture, and is intended to fulfill its communicative purpose without the recipient being conscious of reading or hearing a text

Chapter 6 Discourse and register analysis approach

In the 1990s discourse analyses came to prominence in translation studies. Text analysis normally concentrates on describing in the way in which texts are organized (sentence, structure, cohesion); discourse analysis looks at the way language communicates meaning and social and power relation.

6.1 the Hallidayan model of language and discourse

HALLIDAY’s model discourse analysis is based on SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR, is geared to the study of language as communication, seeing meaning in the writer’s linguistic choices and systematically relating these choices to a wider sociocultural framework. The systemic framework comprises three elements FIELD (ideational meaning), TENOR (interpersonal meaning), MODE (thematic and information structure, cohesion) p.91

6.2 House’s model of translation quality assessment

JULIANE HOUSE introduces the model of systematic comparison of the textual ‘profile of the ST and TT. The register analysis of both ST and TT according to their realization through LIXICAL, SYNTACTIC, and TEXTUAL MEANs refer to:

(1) THEME-DYNAMIC, thematic structure and cohesion

(2) CLAUSAL LINKAGE, additive (and, in addition) adversative (but)

(3) ICONIC LINKAGE, parallelism of structure

The translation can be categorized as:

(1) OVERT TRANSLATION, is a TT does not purport (do) to be an original

(2) COVERT TRANSLATION, is a translation which enjoys the status of an original source text in the target culture.

6.3 Baker’s text and pragmatic level analysis: a course book for translation

MONA BAKER (1992) looks at equivalence at a series of levels: a word, above-word, grammar, thematic structure, cohesion and pragmatic level.

6.4 Hatim and Mason: the semiotic level of context and discourse

BASIL HATIM & IAN MASON (1997) both pay extra attention to the realization in translation of ideational and interpersonal function and incorporate into their model a semiotic level of discourse.

6.5 Criticism of discourse and register analysis approaches to translation

Discourse analysis model have become extremely popular among many linguistics-oriented translation theorist of a text. however, the Hallidayan model has been attacked by:

(1) Fish (1981), cause to struggle to cope with the variety of interpretation of literature

(2) Gutt (1991) raises question whether it is possible to recover authorial intention of ST function from register analysis

Chapter 7 System theories

Linguistics broadened out from static models in the 1960s to an approach which incorporates first skopos theory + register + discourse analysis, relating language its sociocultural function. In the 1970s another reaction to the static perspective models was POLYSYSTEM THEORY which show translated literature as a system operating in the larger social, literary and historical system. This was important move, since translated literature had up to that point mostly been dismissed as a derivative, second-rate form. polysystem theory fed into developments in the descriptive translation studies a branch of translation studies that aim in identifying norms and laws of translation.

7.1 Polysystem theory

Polysystem theory developed by Israeli scholar ITAMAR EVEN-ZOHAR borrowing ideas from Russian Formalists of the 1920s, who had worked on literary historiography. A literary work is part of a system and defined as ‘ a SYSTEM of functions of the literary order which are continual relationship with other orders’. Even-Zohar emphasis that translated literature operates a system:

(1) In the way the TL selects works for translation

(2) In the way translation norms, behavior and policies are influenced by other co-system.

The POLYSYSTEM is concerned as a hetereogeneous, hierarchized conglomerate (or system) of system which interact to bring about on going, dynamic process of evolution within the polysystem as a whole (Shuttleworth &Cowie 1997).

7.2 Toury and descriptive translation study

GIDEON TOURY focused on developing a general theory of translation. Toury proposes a methodology for the branch of descriptive translation study (DTS). Systematic DTS incorporate a description of the product and the wider role of the sociocultural sysyem:

(1) Situate the text within the culture system, looking at its significance or acceptability

(2) Compare the ST and the TT for shifts, identifying relationship between ‘coupled part’ of ST and TT segments, and attempting generalization about the underlying concept of translation

(3) Draw implications for decision-making in future translating

The aim of Toury’s case is to distinguish trends of translation behacior, to make generalizations regarding the decision-making process of the translator and then to ‘reconstruct’ the norms that have been in operation in the translation and make hypothesis that can be tested by future descriptive studies. The NORM = the translation of general value or ideas shared by a community-as to what is right or wrong, adequate or inadequate-into performance instruction appropriate for and applicable to particular situations. P.113

The LAW OF GROWING STANDARDIZATION = in translation, textual relation obtaining the original are often modified, sometimes ignored, in favor of habitual options offered by a target repertoire.

The LAW OF INTERFERENCE = ST linguistic features of TT as ‘ a kind of default’. Interference refer to ST linguistic features mainly lexical and syntactical patterning being copied in the TT.

7.3 Chesterman’s translation norms

ANDREW CHESTERMAN (1997) states that all norms ‘exert a prescriptive pressure’. The norms covers

(1) PRODUCT or EXPECTANCY NORM are established by the expectancies of readers of a translation (of a given type) concerning what a translation (of this type) should be like

– Expectancy norms allow evaluative judgments about translation since readers have a notion of what is appropriate or acceptable

– Expectancy norms are sometimes ‘validated by norm-authority of some kind for example teacher, literary critic and publisher’s reader can confirm the prevalent norm by encouraging translation that confirm with that norm.

(2) PROFESSIONAL NORM ‘regulate process of the translation itself”

(a) THE ACCOUNTABILITY NORM, ETHICAL norm dealing with professional standards of integrity and thoroughness

(b) THE COMMUNICATION NORM, SOCIAL norm, the translator, the communication ‘expert’ works to ensure maximum communication between the parties

7.4 Other models of descriptive translation studies:

Lambert and van Gorp and the Manipulation School divided scheme

(1) PRELIMINARY DATA, information on the title page, metatext and the general strategy (whether translation is partial or complete)

(2) MACRO-LEVEL, the division of text, titles and presentation of the chapters, the internal narrative structure and any overt authorial comment.

(3) MICRO-LEVEL, the identification of shifts on different linguistic levels, include lexical level, grammatical pattern, narrative, point of view and modality

(4) SYSTEMIC CONTEXT, micro- and macro-levels, text and theory are compared and norms identified.

Chapter 8 Varieties of cultural studies

SUSAN BASSNETT and ANDRE LEFEVERE go beyond language and focus on the interaction between translation and culture, on the way in which culture impacts and constrains translation and on the larger issue of context, history and convention à collection fo essay Translation. History and culture (1990)

8.1 Translation as rewriting

ANDRE LEFEVERE worked in comparative literature departments in Belgium and then in USA. He focuses particularly on the examination of a ‘very concrete factors’ that systematically govern the reception. Acceptance or rejection of literary texts; that is ‘issues such as power, ideology, institution and manipulation.’

Lefevere describes literary system in which translation functions as being controlled by:

(1) PROFESSIONALS WITHIN THE LITERAY SYSTEM,

(2) PATRONAGE (support) OUTSIDE THE LITERARY SYSTEM, these are powers (persons, institutions) that can further hinder the reading, writing and rewriting of literature

(a) THE IDEOLOGICAL COMPONENT,

(b) THE ECONOMIC COMPONENENT

(d) THE DOMINANT POETICS

(A) LITERARY DEVICES

(B) THE CONCEPT OF THE ROLE OF LITERATURE. p 129

8.2 Translation and gender

SHERRY SIMON (1996) approaches translation from gender-studies angle. à sees a language of sexism in translation studies, with its images of dominance, fidelity, faithfulness and betrayal. TRANSLATION PROJECT = for feminist translation, fidelity is to be directed toward neither the author nor the reader, but toward writing project-a project in which both writer and translator participate.

8.3 Postcolonial theory

Simon links gender and cultural studies to the developments in POSTCOLONIALISM.

Chapter 9 Translation the foreign: the (in)visibility of translation

Venuti notably the ‘invisibility of translation and the translator in Anglo American culture and the ‘domesticating and ‘foreignizing translation strategies which are available to the translator. Berman’s ‘negative analytic’ attacking the homogenization of the translation of literary prose.

9.1 Venuti: the cultural and political agenda of translation

INVISIBILITY: the translator’s situation and activity in contemporary Anglo-American culture, thus creating an illusion of transparency, (b) by the way the translated texts are typically read in the target culture p146

A translated text, whether prose or poetry, fiction or non-fiction, is judged acceptable by most publishers, reviewers and readers when it reads fluently, when the absence of any linguistics or stylistic peculiarities makes it seems transparent, giving the appearance that it reflects the foreign writer’s personality or intention or the essential meaning of the foreign text-the appearance in other words, that the translation is not in fact a translation, but the ‘original’. (Venuti: 1995)

DOMESTICATION: ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to target language cultural values. This entails translating in a transparent fluent, ‘invisible’ style in order to minimize the foreignness of the TT.

FOREIGNIZATION: entails choosing a foreign text and developing a translation method along lines which are excluded by dominant cultural values in the target language à the translator leaves the writer alone, as much as possible and moves the reader towards the writer. The foreignizing method non-fluent also term RESISTANCY or estranging translation style designed to make visible the presence of the translator by highlighting the foreign identity of the ST and protecting it from the ideological dominance of the target culture.

9.2 Antoine Berman: negative analytic of translat

Источник

ABSTRACT For all human beings, a crucial function of language is to draw attention to things in the world. Like most languages, Vietnamese has its set of ‘pointing words’ that fulfil this function, including này ‘this’, đây ‘this/here’ and đấy, đó, kia ‘that/there’, ấy ‘that’, and nọ ‘that’. Though the meaning of these seven words has expanded and changed over time, all of them originally served to orient the hearer’s attention to something proximal or distal to the speaker’s location. These words are termed demonstratives in English or chỉ định từ in Vietnamese. Chỉ định từ currently play a wide range of syntactic and semantic roles. They can occur as the determiner in a noun phrase (nhà này ‘this house’, nhà ấy/kia/nọ ‘that house’) or appear on their own as either pronominals (đây/đấy, đó, kia là nhà tôi ‘this/that is my house’) or as locative adverbs (lại đây ‘come here’, đến đấy/đó/kia ‘go there’). In the appropriate syntactic environments, these terms allow the speaker to ‘point’ not only to specific objects but also to abstract, invisible concepts that are present, distant, remembered or imagined. Despite the wide range of uses of chỉ định từ, an exhaustive analysis of their syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic functions has previously been lacking in Vietnamese. Even a cursory analysis of the seven Vietnamese demonstratives reveals that each has not just one meaning or sense, but rather a complex network of related senses, or polysemy network. For example, the demonstrative ấy has thirteen different senses, including the function of indicating the position of a referent in space (a spatial sense), preceding discourse (an anaphoric sense) or in the memory of the speaker and/or hearer (as in recognitional, presentational, place holder, or avoidance usages). In addition, ấy has extended senses indicating person deixis, discourse cohesion, modality and interjective usages. Unquestionably, the form ấy has a wide variety of uses in Vietnamese. Is it coincidence that these uses share the same form ấy? If that were the case, the uses of ấy would be unconnected homonymous meanings. Or are these uses somehow related? If so, then the uses of ấy are polysemous senses, and it should be possible to trace how each sense evolved from another, ultimately tracking the evolution of the polysemy network back to a single ancestral sense. This study analyses the form and function of chỉ định từ as found in a range of written texts, and finds that the various functions of Vietnamese demonstratives are related. The extensions responsible for the current range of demonstrative functions follow recognised paths of metaphoric and metonymic change, so that these changes can be reconstructed from synchronic data even in the absence of direct historical evidence. Although all of the seven demonstratives are argued to be polysemous as the result of semantic extensions, each demonstrative has followed its own path of change and no two demonstratives have identical polysemy networks. These differences are due both to the individual semantics of the different demonstratives, and to the stage of change that each demonstrative has reached. The demonstrative nọ may be the best illustration of this second factor, the stage of development of a demonstrative. The demonstrative nọ once had a spatial sense referring to a distant referent, which is argued to be its oldest and most basic sense. This spatial sense extended to a range of other senses, but over time, the spatial sense itself was lost. The demonstrative nọ is the only one in the system currently lacking any spatial function, though its later, extended senses remain. A logical explanation of the present-day senses of nọ can only be achieved through a reconstructed connection with its now-defunct basic meaning. The polysemy structures of chỉ định từ can only be fully understood via the reconstruction of their earlier senses and the extensions these senses underwent. Without the reconstructed spatial sense of nọ, for example, the demonstrative’s polysemy network looks like a scattered system of unrelated senses, rather than a tidy network of senses related by recognised regular semantic changes. The current study, then, is intended to contribute to the field of linguistics in two ways. First, the study provides an in-depth documentation and analysis of the Vietnamese demonstrative system, which has previously been lacking. This comprehensive documentation and analysis could be used as a resource for diachronic or further cross-linguistic study. Second, the semantic evolution and polysemy of demonstratives has previously received relatively little attention in any language. It is therefore hoped that this research will contribute more generally to the study of universal tendencies of grammaticalisation, language change, and the polysemy networks that can result.

Источник

Interlinear translation.

Literary translation.

Advantages and disadvantages of Word for Word Translation

A bad practice

Usage

Machine Translation

Mistakes and Jokes

The term as used in translation studies[edit]

Usage[edit]

Cribs[edit]

Poetry to prose[edit]

As bad practice[edit]

Examples[edit]

Machine translation[edit]

Pidgins[edit]

Translator’s humor[edit]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]

Parker Sante’s explanation on Transliteration vs Translation

Chapter 2. Translation theory before the twentieth century

2.1 ‘Word-for-word’ or ‘sense-for-sense?’

2.2 Martin Luther

2.3 Faithfulness, spirit and truth

2.4 Early attempts at systemic translation theory: Dryden, Dolet and Tytler

2.5 Scleiermacher and the valorization of the foreign

Chapter 3 Equivalence and equivalent effect

3.1 Roman Jacobson: the nature of linguistic meaning and equivalence

3.2 Nida and ‘the science of translating”

3.2.1 The nature of meaning: advances in semantics and pragmatics

3.2.2 the influence of Chomsky

3.2.3 Formal and dynamic equivalence and the principle of equivalent effect

3.3 Newmark: semantic and communicative translation

3.4 Koller: Korrespondenz and Aquivalenz

Chapter 4 The Translation Shift Approach

4.1 Vinay and Dalbernet’s model

4.2 Catford and translation ‘shifts’

4.3 Czeh writing on translation shifts p. 62

4.4 Van Leuven-Zwart’s comparative-descriptive model of translation shift

Chapter 5 Functional Theories of translation

5.1 Text Type-Katharina Reiss

5.2 Translational Action – Holz Mantaari

5.4 Translation-oriented text analysis – Christine Nord

Chapter 6 Discourse and register analysis approach

6.1 the Hallidayan model of language and discourse

6.3 Baker’s text and pragmatic level analysis: a course book for translation

6.4 Hatim and Mason: the semiotic level of context and discourse

6.5 Criticism of discourse and register analysis approaches to translation

Chapter 7 System theories

7.1 Polysystem theory

7.2 Toury and descriptive translation study

7.3 Chesterman’s translation norms

7.4 Other models of descriptive translation studies:

Chapter 8 Varieties of cultural studies

8.1 Translation as rewriting

8.2 Translation and gender

8.3 Postcolonial theory

Chapter 9 Translation the foreign: the (in)visibility of translation

9.1 Venuti: the cultural and political agenda of translation