equivalence sesiune

8/7/2019 Equivalence Sesiune

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/equivalence-sesiune 1/19

SESIUNEA DE COUMUNICRI TIINIFICE, 25 martie 2011³Dunrea de Jos´ of Galai

Faculty of LettersMasters in Translation and Interpreting

Equivalencein Translation

Studeni: Bocneal Bogdan

Anul I, 2010-2011

Îndrumtor, prof. dr. Elena Croitoru



TranslationTranslation A method employed and

discussed since Antiquity.

Translation is generallyseen as a process of

communicating the foreigntext by establishing arelationship of identity oranalogy.

Evolved to the point whereit reached the status of an

academic field.

Involves a specific relationbetween a SLT and TLT ±Equivalence. Figure 3.1 (Munday 2001:41)



Translation Theorists and

Equivalence

Interpreted by some of the most innovativetranslation theorists: Vinay and Darbelnet,Jakobson, Nida, Newmark, Catford, House and

Baker.

Three main groups:

linguistic approach - language focus

pragmatic & semantic approach ± culture focus

linguistic & pragmatic & semantic approach -language and culture focus



Eugene Nida One of the most important theorists and

translators.

Discards µliteral¶, µfaithful¶ and µfree¶ for formal anddynamic equivalence.

Linguistic approach to translation but interest in themessage of the text (semantic quality - aparamount).

Draws a significant amount of criticism (too simplebinary system).



Formal (Functional) Equivalence

³Focuses attention on the message itself, in both form andcontent´ (Nida 1969:158), i.e. a TL item which representsthe closest equivalent of a SL word or phrase.

HOWEVER: not always formal equivalents between language pairs serious implications at times in the TT since thetranslation will not be easily understood by the targetaudience

³T ypically, formal correspondence distorts thegrammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language,and hence distorts the message, so as to cause thereceptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard.´ (Nidaand Taber 1982:122)



Dynamic Equivalence Based upon µthe principle of equivalent effect¶ (Nida

1964:159)

³T he relationship between receptor and messageshould be substantially the same as that which existed

between the original receptors and the message.´

(Nida 1964:159)

The goal ± naturalness in translation

A more efficient method



Peter Newmark

Different approach to equivalence

Departs from Nida¶s line

Discards µformal¶ and µdynamic¶ for semantic andcommunicative

Equivalence inoperable - full equivalence illusory



Semantic and Communicative Translation

ComparisonParameter Semantic Translation Communicative Translation

Transmitter/

Addressee

Focus

Focus on the thought processes of the

transmitter as an individual (TL

connotations if they are a crucial part of the message)

Subjective, TT reader focused, oriented

toward a specific language and culture.

Culture. Remains within the SL culture Transfers foreign elements into the TL

culture.

Relation to ST. Always inferior to ST; loss of meaning May be better than the ST; gain of force

and clarity even if loss of semanticcontent

Use of form of the SL Replicates deviated norms; loyalty to ST

author.

Respect for the form of the SL, but

overriding loyalty to TL norms.

Form of the TT. More complex, awkward, detailed;

tendency to over translate.

Smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct;

tendency to under translate.

Appropriateness For serious literature, autobiography,

personal effusion, any important political

(or other) statement.

For the vast majority of texts, e.g. non ±

literary writing, technical and informative

texts, publicity, standardized types,popular fiction.

Table 3.1 (Munday 2001:45)



Mona Baker

Discusses the problem of equivalence combiningthe linguistic and communicative approach.

Types of equivalence: at word level and

above word level

Equivalence explored at different levels:

word level grammatical level

text level

pragmatic level



Equivalence at word level: Analyze words as single units in order to find a direct

µequivalent¶ term in the TL

A single word can sometimes be assigned differentmeanings in different languages and might beregarded as being a more complex unit ormorpheme.

The translator should pay attention to a number of

factors when considering a single word, such as:number, gender and tense.



Grammatical equivalence

Different grammatical structures in the SL and TLcause changes in the way the information or messageis carried across;

The translator either adds or omits information in theTT because of the lack of particular grammaticaldevices in the TL itself.

Amongst the grammatical devices which might causeproblems in translation Baker focuses on number,tense and aspects, voice, person and gender.



Grammatical equivalence (2)

The idea of countability is universal;

Gender - a grammatical category according towhich a noun or pronoun is generally classified as

masculine, feminine or neutral;e.g.

The category of person relates to the notion of

participant roles;

e.g. Mr. Peters, if there¶s anything I can do to help you , I shall feel it, for your wife¶s sake, a pleasure . . .´

Domnule Peters, dac v pot ajuta cu ceva, de dragul soiei d umneav oastr , o voi face

cu plcere«( my translation )

³I went out with a friend last night.´

³A man or a woman?´

- Am iesit in oras c u cinevaasearã.

-Bãrbat sau femeie?



Textual equivalence Texture provides useful guidelines for the

comprehension and analysis of the ST;

It is up to the translator to decide whether to maintain

or not the cohesive ties as well as the coherence of the SL text;

His or her decision will be guided by three mainfactors, i.e., the target audience, the purpose of thetranslation and the text type;

Problems arise when a principle as focus clashes withbasic grammatical principles.e.g. A poi sosi Andrei. ± And then Andrei arrived.



Pragmatic equivalence

refers to implicatures and strategies of avoidanceduring the translation process.

The translator needs to work out implied meanings intranslation in order to get the ST message across.

The role of the translator is to recreate the author's

intention in another culture in such a way that itenables the TC reader to understand it clearly.

e.g. to be silver tongued ± a avea vorba dulce.



Equivalence ± Conclusions One of the most problematic and controversial

areas in translation

Although the key problem since the 60¶s and 70¶s(even Antiquity), still the cause of heated debates

Total equivalence ± ³A chimera´

Displaced from the central position by thefunctionalist trend (focus on the receptor)



Translation ±Conclusions Although equivalence is a mirage, translation is not

impossible

Untranslability ± statistics, not mystery

Translation involves altering forms ± ³traduttoretraditore´

Impossibility of a universal approach



Bibliography Nida, Eugene A. (1964) T owards a Science of T ranslating. Leiden: E. J.

Brill.

Nida and Taber (1982) T he theory and practice of translation. Leiden:Brill.

Baker, Mona (1992) In Other Words: a Coursebook on T ranslation.London: Routledge.

Leonardi, Vanessa (2000) Equivalence in T ranslation: Between Mythand Reality. T ranslation Journal.( http://translationjournal.net/journal/14equiv.htm )

Venutti, Laurence (2000) T he T ranslation Studies Reader . London:Routledge

Munday, Jeremy (2001) Introducing T ranslation Studies. London:Routledge



THE END

THANK YOU!

equivalence sesiune

Documents