Transcript docenti.unimc.it

The basic idea is that all theories respond to one
central problem: translation can be defined by
equivalence, but there are many reasons why
equivalence is not a stable concept.
(Pym 2010)
Virtual meaning – actualized meaning
Well





I would like more information on the well water
purifier.
Are you feeling well today?
It would be well to ask him once more [sarebbe
opportuno...]
It was well for him that you were here [fu una fortuna
per lui che...]
Well then, are you coming? [allora, vieni?]

Differences at many levels:
- gender: Der Tod
- aspect: do=fare/faccio/fai
- semantic field:
1) spiffero
2) Friday 13th
3) black in the West, white in
India
La sua malattia è una realtà = Her illness is GENUINE
L’arte come imitazione della realtà = Art as imitation of NATURE
Progetti che diventano realtà = Plans which are REALISED
Spesso non vediamo la realtà = Often we don’t see THINGS
Ha il senso della realtà = He is REALISTIC
La realtà è dura = LIFE is hard
Bisogna tenere presente la realtà locale = We must keep local NEEDS in
mind
La realtà economica = The economic SITUATION
Roman Jakobson
languages differ in what they MUST convey and not in
what they MAY convey
Roman Jakobson
translation means
“substituting messages in one language not for
separate code-units but for entire messages in
some other language”
Roman Jakobson
“The translator recodes and transmits a message
received from another source. Thus translation
involves two equivalent messages in two different
codes”
Eugene A. Nida (1914-2011)

Attempts to make the study of translation more scientific:
> Central for Nida: to move away from the old idea that a
word has a fixed meaning; a word acquires meaning
through its context and can produce varying responses
according to culture
Nida

System for the analysis of MEANING:

Meaning can be broken down into
LINGUISTIC
REFERENTIAL
EMOTIVE
Techniques to determine the meaning of different linguistic items:
- hierarchical structures
- componential analysis
- semantic structure analysis
Nida < Noam Chomsky

Sentences characterised by 2 levels of representation
governed by rules:
Transformational
rules >
DEEP STRUCTURE
(underlying, made of core
semantic relations)

SURFACE
STRUCTURE
(subject to phonological
and morphemic rules)
Most basic structure relations are called
KERNEL SENTENCES
“basic structural elements out of which
language build its elaborate surface
structures”
Nida
3-stage system of translation
Nida's 4 basic functional classes:
- events (verbs)
- objects (nouns)
- abstracts (adjectives)
- relationals (prepositions and conjunctions)
The message is transformed into the surface structure
in 3 stages:

1-Literal meaning 2- Minimal transfer 3- Literary transfer
“Egeneto anthrōpos, apestalmenos para theou, onoma autō Iōannēs”
(John 1:6)
1- became/happened man, sent from God, name to-him John
2-There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John
3- A man, named John, was sent by God
Nida's system to classify equivalence

FORMAL EQUIVALENCE: focuses attention on the message
itself, in both form and content […] following the words and
textual patterns of the ST closely
DYNAMIC (or FUNCTIONAL) EQUIVALENCE: tries to
recreate the function the words might have had in their original
situation
> PRINCIPAL OF EQUIVALENT EFFECT: the success of translation
depends on achieving equivalent response
Is equivalence really possible?
Greet one another with a holy kiss
=
Give one another a hearty handshake??
Lamb of God
=
Seal of God??
Peter Newmark (1916-2011)
Total equivalence virtually impossible to achieve.
Equivalent effect is illusory.
He suggests new terms:
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
> formal value of the source text
COMMUNICATIVE TRANSLATION: attempts to produce on its
readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the
readers of the original
> needs of the addressee
Peter Newmark
word-for-word translation is not only the best,
it is the only valid method of translation
BUT...
If semantic translation is abnormal,
communicative translation wins out
bissiger Hund = beware the dog
Comparison of Newmark's semantic and communicative
translation
PARAMETER
SEMANTIC TRANS
COMMUNICATIVE TR
Transmitter/addres
see focus
Focus on the thought
processes of the
transmitter
TT focused, oriented
towards a specific
language and
culture
Culture
Time and origin
Remains with the ST
culture
Not fixed: trans. needs
to be done anew
every time
Transfers foreign
elements in its own
contemporary
context
Rooted in its own
contemporary
context
Comparison of Newmark's semantic and communicative
translation
COMMUNICATIVE TR
PARAMETER
SEMANTIC TRANS
Relation to ST
Use of forms of SL
Always 'inferior' to ST,
'loss' of meaning
May be 'better' than
the ST, 'gain' of
force and clarity
If ST deviates,
deviation must be
replicated
Loyalty to TL norms
Form of TL
More complex,
detailed,
concentrated
Appropriateness
For serious literature
Smoother, simpler,
more direct,
conventional
Non-literary writing
J. Munday, Introducing Translation Studies (2008) Chap. 3, Par.
3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3.