i Vir Formal Corre Son Dence and Tere Visited

translation equivalence
of 10
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  VLADIMIR IVIR FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE VS. TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCEREVISITED In: Even-Zohar & Gideon Toury (1981) Theory of Translation and InterculturalRelations !niversity of Tel viv (#  Poetics Today 2:4)  $% 1-9The t'o conce$ts 'hich feature in the title of the $resent $a$er elon tot'o different thouh (as 'ill e sho'n) y no *eans unrelated activities%+or*al corres$ondence is a ter* used in contrastive analysis 'hile translatione,uivalence elons to the *etalanuae of translation% In $rinci$le $erha$sthe t'o ter*s could e discussed se$arately in their t'o disci$lines and it isindeed $ossile to i*aine a theory of translation 'hich 'ould o$erate 'ith theconce$t of e,uivalence defined 'ithout reference to for*al corres$ondence ustas it is $ossile to i*aine contrastive analysis 'hich 'ould rely on the conce$tof corres$ondence estalished 'ithout the use of translation% In $racticeho'ever oth ter*s have een found necessary y students of translation and y contrastive analysis%Issues that are raised in connection 'ith for*al corres$ondence andtranslation e,uivalence are certainly *ore than ust ter*inoloical: a discussionof for*al corres$ondence in translation concerns the role of linuistic units intranslation and the $lace of linuistics in translation theory 'hile a discussion of translation e,uivalence in contrastive analysis concerns the role of translation incontrastive 'or.% The relationshi$ et'een the* has een discussed y /atford(190) fro* the $oint of vie' of translation theory and y arton (1908) Ivir (1909 1923) 4r5eso's.i (1921 1926) Raae (1926) fro* the $oint of vie' of contrastive analysis% 17ur understandin of the conce$t of translation e,uivalence 'ill de$endon the vie' 'e ta.e of translation itself%  at translation as a result or  $roduct faced 'ith t'o tets one of 'hich is a translation of the other 'e *iht e te*$ted to conclude that translation is the re$lace*ent of tetual *aterial inone lanuae (;) y e,uivalent tetual *aterial in another lanuae (TI%)<%%% or *ore enerally that it is  the rendition of a tet fro* one lanuaeto another< (=oliner 1900: 1>3)% E,uivalence 'ould then eist et'een tets ? i%e% it 'ould hold toether chun.s of tetual *aterial or linuistic units (tets ein si*$ly linuistic units of a hiher order than the s*aller units 'hichco*$ose the*)% This is a static vie' oth of translation and of e,uivalence:   $ushed to its etre*e it forces in the conclusion that for any linuistic unit (tetof $ortion of a tet) in the source lanuae there is an e,uivalent unit in thetaret lanuae and the it is translator@s o to find that unit% Aence the search for different tetual ty$es and their characteristics in different lanuaes% nother $icture of translation and translation e,uivalence is otained 'hen a dyna*ic vie' is ta.en and translation is rearded as a $rocess rather than as a result% 7ne then s$ea.s aout sustitutin *essaes in one lanuae for *essaes in so*e other lanuae (Ba.oson 199: 6>) aout re$roducinin the rece$tor lanuae the closest natural e,uivalent of the *essae of the source lanuae< (Cida 1909: D9) or aout the nature of dyna*ic e,uivalence in translatin< Cida 1922)%This letter vie' of translation is the co**unicative vie' and it sees translation e,uivalence not as a static relationshi$ et'een $airs of tets in different lanuaes ut rather as a $roduct of the dyna*ic $rocess of co**unication et'een the sender of the oriinal *essae and the ulti*ate receivers of the translated *essae via the translator 'ho is the receiver of the oriinal *essae and the sender of the translated *essae essaes are confiurations of etralinuistic features co**unicated in the iven situation% The oriinal sender starts fro* these features and ? relyin on the resources of his lanuae on his co**and of that lanuae and on his assess*ent of the nature of the sociolinuistic relationshi$ et'een hi* and his (actual of  $otential) receivers ? codes the* to $roduce the source tet% The coded *essae (source tet) reaches the translator throuh the (s$atio-te*$oral) channel of co**unication% Ae decodes it and receives the oriinal sender@s *essae 'hichhe then $roceeds to code aain in the taret lanuae relyin on the resources of that lanuae on his co**and of that lanuae and on his assess*ent of hisrelation to the ulti*ate receivers%!nder this vie' 'hat is held constant (i%e% e,uivalent) are not tets ut rather *essaes and it is *essaes that the $artici$ants return to at every ste$ inthe $rocess of co**unication% The translator in $articular does not $roceed directly fro* the source tet to the taret tet: rather he oes fro* the source tet ac. to that confiuration of etralinuistic features 'hich the oriinal sender has tried to co**unicate as the his *essae and havin arrived there he codes that *essae aain in a ne' and different co**unicative situation  $roducin a tet in the taret lanuae for the enefit of the ulti*ate receivers% ;everal $oints *ust e *ade in connection 'ith the vie' of translation and e,uivalence $resented here% +irst the nature of the translator@s o in receivin the oriinal sender@s *essae does not essentially differ fro* the o of other source-lanuae receivers of that *essae and his o in codin the  received *essae aain in the taret lanuae is not unli.e the tas. $erfor*ed  y the oriinal sender (only the co**unicative situation is different that is the translator is a different linuistic $erson< than the oriinal sender he uses a different lanuae and codes the *essae for different receivers than the oriinalsender)%;econd *essaes are not co**unicated asolutely% The oriinal *essaeunderoes *odifications in the $rocess of codin (de$endin on the $otential of the lanuae the sender@s co**and of that lanuae and the intended audience) in the $rocess of trans*ission (o'in to the noise line the channel<)and in the $rocess of decodin (de$endin on the receiver@s co**and of the lanuae and his aility ? co*in fro* the shared e$eriential ac.round % to ras$ the sender@s *essae)% /learly such *odifications also ta.e $lace 'hen the translator receives the *essae 'hen he codes it aain in the taret lanuae 'hen he trans*its the coded *essae throuh the channel of co**unication hi* 'ith his receivers and 'hen the ulti*ate receivers decode the translated *essae% This relativity of co**unication ? any co**unication and not us that involvin translation -% $laces the conce$t of e,uivalence in translation in a ne'  $ers$ective: e,uivalence holds et'een *essaes (co**unicated y the oriinal sender received and translated y the translator and received y the ulti*ate receivers) 'hich chane as little as $ossile and as *uch as necessary to ensure co**unication% Thus true translation is y no *eans li*ited to co**unicative situations involvin t'o lanuaes% n act of translation  $lace each ti*e that a tet is $roduced as a coded e$ression of a $articular confiuration of etralinuistic features and is decoded to enale the receiver to receive the *essae (cf% ;teiner 192: D2)The third $oint that can e *ade aout translation e,uivalence follo's fro* 'hat has ust een said: e,uivalence is a *atter of relational dyna*ics in a co**unicative act ? it is reali5ed in that act and has no se$arate eistence outside it% It can thus e co*$ared to astract units of the linuistic syste* suchas $hone*es 'hich do not eist $hysically outside the s$eech act in 'hich they are reali5ed and 'hose reali5ation in s$eech is so*e'hat different and is yet  $roduced and received as the sa*e< $hone*e% 7r it could e co*$ared to a  $erson@s sinature there is no ideal< sinature of a iven $erson and in each act of sinin it co*es out a little different visually yet it is reconi5ed as e,uivalence< 'ith any other of it reali5ations ? allo'in for the fact that different reali5ations ta.e $lace in different co**unicative situations%6  ;ince translation e,uivalence is the translator@s ai* and since it isestalished at the level of *essaes in the co**unicative act and not at thelevel of linuistic units it *ay a$$ear that there is no need for the conce$t of for*at corres$ondence in the *odel of translation $resented here% I 'ill aruefurther elo' that this is not so and that there is a sense in 'hich for*alcorres$ondence holds toether the source and taret tets% =ut in order tode*onstrate this a *odification of so*e of the availale definitions of for*alcorres$ondence 'ill e needed%/atford has defined for*al corres$ondence as identity of function of corres$ondent ite*s in t'o linuistic syste*s: for hi* a for*al corres$ondentis any T Ftaret lanuaeF cateory 'hich *ay e said to occu$y as nearly as $ossile the sa*e< $lace in the econo*y of the T as the iven ;FsourcelanuaeF cateory occu$ies in the ; (/atford 190: >6)% arton (1908) and4r5es5o's.i (1921 1926) $ostulated an ever closer relationshi$ et'eenlinuistic e$ressions in the source and taret lanuaes ? that of conruence'hich is characteri5ed y the $resence in the t'o lanuaes of the sa*enu*er of e,uivalent for*atives arraned in the sa*e order% Reali5in thatrelyin on a conce$t defined in this 'ay 'ould $revent the contrastive analystfro* ' 'ith real lanuae (and 'ould thus *a.e his results useless for any conceivale $edaoic $ur$oses) 4r5es5o's.i later (1926: 83) 'ent ac. to the conce$t of e,uivalence% Ao'ever he a$$lied it to sentences $ossessinidentical dee$ structures (i%e% se*antic re$resentations of *eanin) rather thanthose 'hich 'ere translations of each other% t the level of dee$ structurese,uivalent sentences 'ere also rearded as conruent their conruencedisa$$earin in later derivational staes leadin to the surface structure% =oth /atford@s for*al corres$ondence< and arton-4r5es5o's.i@sconruenceFe,uivalence< re$resent atte*$ts at rinin linuistic units of thesource and taret lanuaes into so*e .ind of relationshi$ for $ur$oses of contrastin the necessary tertium comparationis  ein $rovided y the identityof function or *eanin% ithout a tertium comparationis no co*$arison or contrastin of linuistic units is $ossile ut the ,uestion is 'hat can serve asthe tertium comparationis.  7ne $ossiility 'ould e an inde$endently descriedse*antic syste* 'hose cateories 'ould e held constant 'hile their linuistice$ressions in $airs of lanuaes under ea*ination 'ould e contrasted%Ao'ever such a syste* has not yet een $ro$osed and 'e do not .no' 'hat itscateories *iht e% nother $ossiility *iht e a co**on *etalanuae in ter*s of 'hich oth the source and the taret lanuae 'ould e descried to the sa*e dereeof ehaustiveness% This *etalanuae 'ould su$$ly cateories in ter*s of 'hichthe a$$ro$riate $arts of the t'o syste*s could e contrasted since thedescri$tions 'ould e *atchale their contrastin 'ould consist in si*$ly
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks