Читайте также:
|
Translation is, above all, an activity that aims at conveying meaning or meanings of a given-linguistic discourse from one language to another, rather than the words or grammatical structures of the original. The interest here lies in the shift of emphasis from referential or dictionary meaning to contextual and pragmatic meaning. Such a shift represents a significant development, particularly relevant to translation, and to communicative register-based approach to translation.
The meaning of a given word or set of words is best understood as the contribution that word or phrase can make to the meaning or function of the whole sentence or linguistic utterance where that word or phrase occurs. The meaning of a given word is governed not only by the external object or idea that particular word is supposed to refer to, but also by the use of that particular word or phrase in a particular way, in a particular context, and to a particular effect.
The first type of meaning, i.e., the meaning of reference, is often referred to as the "referential" meaning, the "lexical" meaning, the "conceptual" meaning, or the "denotative" meaning. It is also sometimes referred to as the "signification" of a lexical item.
There is a distinction between conceptual meaning, on the hand, and connotative, stylistic, affective, reflected, and collocative types of meaning on the other hand. Thus, we classify the last five types of meaning under one general category of associated meaning. There is a clear distinction between the logical meaning or the lexical reference of a particular word, and between the types of associated meaning. Such a distinction in the field of semantics between the lexical and the associated may remind us of the distinction between the semantic and the communicative approach as far as the literature on translation is concerned. The reason why there is a distinction, however, is that the conceptual meaning of a word is the type of meaning which could be mainly deduced in isolation from any other linguistic or even non-linguistic context, whereas the other types of meaning, whether associative or theoretical, are broadly speaking to be derived from the context of the utterance. Hence, this is relevant to translation and translation theories. It is usually easier to find the conceptual or the logical meaning of a given word, but that type of meaning is not always telling in the case of translation. However, it is often difficult to obtain even the lexical equivalent of a given item in translation, when the translation is taking place across two different languages that do not have a culture in common, such as translation from Arabic into English and vice versa. Yet, we should not indulge in a tedious and rather worthless search for the lexical equivalent, since, even if such lexical items are easy to come by, they might not be helpful in translation.
There is a difference between the referential meaning of a word and the contextual meaning of the same word. Let us consider, for example, three lexical items which have the same physical reference in the world of non-linguistic reality, but are not simply used alternatively in free variation on each other. The words 'father', 'daddy' and 'pop' refer to the same physical object, i.e. the male parent. Yet other factors contribute to the choice of one rather than the other two in different situations. These factors may vary in accordance with the personality of the speaker or addressor, the presence or absence of the male parent in question, the feelings the addressor has towards his father as well as the degree of formality or informality between the two. In the case of translation, it is almost needless to point out the significance of such factors.
The same difference is recognized between referential and contextual types of meaning of lexical items, by the use of a different set of labels. Distinction is made between the signification of a given lexical item and its value or meaning when used in a particular context. In translation, consequently, the translator ought to translate the communicative function of the source language text, rather than its signification. A translator must, therefore, look for a target-language utterance that has an equivalent communicative function, regardless of its formal resemblance to original utterance as far as the formal structure is concerned. In other words, translation should operate or take place on the level of language use, more than usage. It has to be carried out in the way the given linguistic system is used for actual communication purposes, not on the level of the referential meaning or the formal sentence structure. Conveying textual effect of the original is the final objective to which a translator aspires, "A text is a whole entity, to be translated as a whole".
11. Pragmatic factors and the problem of translation (Shveitser’s approach).
Pragmatics of translation is a wide notion which covers not only pragmatic meaning of a word, but some problems connected with various levels of understanding by speech acts communicants of certain meanings or messages, depending on linguistic or paralinguistic factors, that is, background knowledge.
According to Shveitser, pragmatic factors include: connection between meaning and extralinguistic reality, speech context (explicit and implicit), communicative aim, which links the utterance with changeable participants of the communicational process (the subject of the speech and its recipients, the stock of their knowledge, opinions and situation in which the speech act takes place).
Speaking about the problems of translation, Shveitser makes emphasis on three problems: equivalence, adequacy and translatability.
The notion of equivalence is undoubtedly one of the most problematic and controversial areas in the field of translation theory. Equivalence is the reproduction of a SL text by TL means. Equivalence is not a constant but a variable quantity and the range of variability is considerable. The degree of equivalence depends on the linguistic means used in the SL texts and on the functional style to which the text belongs. E.g.:
Early December brought a brief respite when temperatures fell and the ground hardened, but a quick thaw followed.
В начале декабря наступила краткая передышка, температура понизилась, земля замерзла, но потом быстро началась оттепель.
Equivalence implies variability and consequently several types of equivalence can be distinguished. First Type – Formal Equivalence.
Children go to school every morning. Дети ходят в школу каждое утро.
The content, the structure of the sentence and the semantic components (language units) are similar. Each element of the SL text has a corresponding one in the TL text. But such cases of complete similarity are rather rare.
Second Type – Partial Correspondence Equivalence.
Non-corresponding elements may be lexical, grammatical or stylistical. Equivalence of the second type is usually achieved by means of various transformations: substitution or replacements (both lexical and grammatical), additions and omissions, paraphrasing and compensation.
All through the long foreign summer the American tourist abroad has been depressed by the rubber quality of his dollar.
Во время продолжительного летнего пребывания за границей американских туристов угнетало непрерывное сокращение покупательной способности доллара.
Although a considerable degree of equivalence has been achieved a number of transformations, certain losses have been incurred, namely, compactness and vividness. They are accounted for by existing differences in collocability (valency).
Third Type – Situational or Factual Equivalence.
The content or sense of the utterance is conveyed by different grammatical and lexical units.
Situational equivalence is observed when the same phenomenon is described in a different way because it is seen from a different angle, e.g. The police cleared the streets. Полиция разогнала демонстрацию. Hold the line. Не кладите трубку.
This type of equivalence also comprises the translation of clichés, orders, warnings and notices, phraseological units and set expressions, formulae of politeness, etc.
There were no survivors – Все погибли. Fragile – осторожно, стекло;
Keep off, wet paint – не садиться, окрашено;
As distinguished from equivalence based on the reproduction of the communicative level, adequacy stresses adaptation to factors arising from the secondary situation. While equivalence regards translation as a result, adequacy tends to view it as a process.
There are both linguistic and extralinguistic aspects that hinder to reach adequacy in translation. Misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the extralinguistic information means to misrepresent:
1. either what was actually communicated in the SL text, what means the pragmatic core of the SL text may be lost and therefore in the TL text ambivalence may arise for the recipient reader.
2. or there may be misrepresented the author's communicative intention, the social context of the scene/situation as well as disposition or relationships of the communication act participants.
Both semantic and pragmatic inadequacies are flaws which can pose a recipient reader to the problem or cultural misunderstanding and adequate comprehension of the TL text.
The problem of translatability or untranslatability is closely related to man’s understanding of the nature of language, meaning and translation. Three types of untranslatability, referential, pragmatic, and intralingual ones, may be distinguished. On the understanding that the object of translation is the message instead of the carrier of the message, language-specific norms considered untranslatable by some linguists should be excluded from the realm of untranslatables. And since translation is a communicative event involving the use of verbal signs, the chance of untranslatability in practical translating tasks may be minimized if the communicative situation is taken into account. In a larger sense, the problem of translatability is one of degrees: the higher the linguistic levels the source language signs carry meaning(s) at, the higher the degree of translatability these signs may display; the lower the levels they carry meaning(s) at, the lower the degree of translatability they may register.
Translatability problems are often originated by cultural differences. In countries like Italy or France, there are qualities and varieties of cheese and wine that, elsewhere, could be simply unimaginable, and so can be untranslatable. However, if the translator chooses to render "Château de Meursault" as "red wine" or "gorgonzola" as "cheese", he produces a huge and unforgivable gastronomic loss.
There is the opposite case as well: translation from a culture in which there are fewer categories in a given context (grammatical, cultural, etc.) into a culture with more categories. In this case, the result of literal translation is redundant, has a surplus of meaning, a situation so common that we hardly notice the phenomenon any more.
Дата добавления: 2015-09-11; просмотров: 199 | Поможем написать вашу работу | Нарушение авторских прав |