Эквивалентность перевода при передаче функционально- ситуативного содержания оригинала - Іноземна мова - Скачать бесплатно

тема работы Эквивалентность перевода при передаче функционально- ситуативного содержания оригинала на примере произведения Джером К. Джером “Трое в лодке, не считая собаки” CONTENT Introduction 3 Chapter 1. The Basic Notion of Translation 1.1 Translation and its aims 6 1.2 Lexical difficulties of transformation 9 Chapter 2. Equivalence and Adequacy in Translation 2.1 Levels of Equivalence and the Concept of Adequate Translation 17 2.2 Equivalence in Translation: Between Myth and Reality 20 2.2.1 Vinay and Darbelnet and their definition of equivalence in translation 21 2.2.2Jakobson and the concept of equivalence in difference 22 2.2.3 Nida and Taber: Formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence 23 2.2.4 Catford and the introduction of translation shifts 25 2.2.5 House and the elaboration of overt and covert translation 27 2.2.6 Baker's approach to translation equivalence 28 Chapter 3. Equivalence of Translation of the Expressive Means 3.1 Metaphors in “Three Men in a Boat” 31 3.2 Metonymy as one of the expressive means in “Three Men in a Boat” 39 Conclusion 44 Bibliography 46 Введение Introduction Translation may be viewed as an interlingual communicative act in which at least three participants are involved: the sender or source (the author of the source-language message), the translator who acts in dual capacity – as the receptor of the source-language message and as the sender of the equivalent target-language message), and the receptor of the target-language message (translation). Translation as such consists in producing a text (message) in the target language, equivalent to the original text (message) in the source-language. The earliest linguistic theory of translation was developed by Soviet scholars Y. I. Retsker and A. V. Fedorov who pioneered in a linguistic analysis of translation problems. Their theory came to be known as the theory of regular correspondences. Translation, they argued, is inconceivable without a sound linguistic basis, and this basis can be provided by a contrastive study of linguistics phenomena and the establishment of certain correspondences between the language of the original and that of the translation. In the ’60 some linguists (V. Y. Rozentsveig in the USSR and E. Nida in the USA) proposed a theoretical model of translation, based on generative or transformational grammar. E. Nida sub-divides the process of translation into three stages: analysis where an ambiguous surface structure is transformed into non-ambiguous kernel sentences to facilitate semantic interpretation (the foundation of a school – <- (somebody) founded a school or… <- – a school has a foundation), transfer where equivalents in the target language are found at a kernel or near-kernel level and restructuring where target-language kernel sentences are transformed into surface structures. It is true that in some cases it is necessary to paraphrase the source-language structure to facilitate its translation. Such transformations come in handy especially when the source-language structure is ambiguous or when it has no parallel in the target language (e.g. He stood with his feet planted wide apart – <- He stood; his ГЛАВА 1. Chapter 1. The Basic Notion of Translation 1.1 Translation and its aims. Most translators prefer to think of their work as a profession and would like to see others to treat them like professionals rather than as skilled or semi-skilled workers. But to achieve this, translators need to develop an ability to stand back and reflect on what they do and how they do it. Like doctors and engineers, hey have to prove to themselves as well as others that they are in control of what they do; that they do not just translate well because they have ‘flair’ for translation, but rather because, like other professionals, they have made a conscious effort to understand various aspects of their work. Unlike medicine and engineering, translation is a very young discipline in academic terms. It is only just starting to feature as a subject of study in its own right, not yet in all but in an increasing number of universities and colleges around the world. Like any young discipline, it needs to draw on the findings and theories of other related disciplines in order to develop and formalize its own methods; but which disciplines it can naturally and fruitfully be related to is still a matter of some controversy. Almost every aspect of life in general and of the interaction between speech communities in particular can be considered relevant to translation, a discipline which has to concern itself with how meaning is generated within and between various groups of people in various cultural settings. This is clearly too big an area to investigate in one go. So, let us just start by saying that, if translation is ever to become a profession in the full sense of the word, translators will need something other than the current mixture of intuition and practice to enable them to reflect on what they do and how they do it. They will need, above all, to acquire a sound knowledge of the raw material with which they work: to understand what language is and how it comes to function for its users. Translation is a process of rendering a text, written piece or a speech by means of other languages. The difference of translation from retelling or other kinds of transfer of a given text is that that translation is a process of creating an original unity in contexts and forms of original. The translation quality is defined by its completeness and value. “The completeness and value of translation means definite rendering of the contextual sense of the original piece and a high-grade functional- stylistic conformity.” The concept “high-grade functional-stylistic conformity” clearly points on two existing ways of rendering the form in unity with the meaning: the first one is a reproduction of specific features of the form of the original piece and the second one is the creation of functional conformities of those features. It means when translating the specific features of an original literature we should rather consider the style inherent for the given genre but than direct copying the form of an original. While translating, we should also remember that different lexical and grammatical elements of an original might be translated differently if accepted by the norms of conformity to the whole original. The translation adequacy of separate phrases, sentences and paragraphs should not be considered separately but along with achievement of the adequacy and completeness of the translating piece as a whole because the unity of a piece is created through collecting the components. No matter how a translator (interpreter) is talented he should remember two most important conditions of the process of translation: the first is that the aim of translation is to get the reader as closely as possible acquainted with the context of a given text and then second – to translate – means to precisely and completely express by means of one language the things that had been expressed earlier by the means of another language. A translation can be done: 1. from one language into another, kin-language, non-kin, 2. from literary language into its dialect or visa versa 3. from the language of an ancient period into its modern state The process of translation, no matter how fast it is, is subdivided into two moments. To translate one should first of all to understand, to perceive the ГЛАВА 2. 2.2 Equivalence in Translation: Between Myth and Reality The comparison of texts in different languages inevitably involves a theory of equivalence. Equivalence can be said to be the central issue in translation although its definition, relevance, and applicability within the field of translation theory have caused heated controversy, and many different theories of the concept of equivalence have been elaborated within this field in the past fifty years. The aim of this paper is to review the theory of equivalence as interpreted by some of the most innovative theorists in this field—Vinay and Darbelnet, Jakobson, Nida and Taber, Catford, House, and finally Baker. These theorists have studied equivalence in relation to the translation process, using different approaches, and have provided fruitful ideas for further study on this topic. Their theories will be analyzed in chronological order so that it will be easier to follow the evolution of this concept. These theories can be substantially divided into three main groups. In the first there are those translation scholars who are in favour of a linguistic approach to translation and who seem to forget that translation in itself is not merely a matter of linguistics. In fact, when a message is transferred from the SL to TL, the translator is also dealing with two different cultures at the same time. This particular aspect seems to have been taken into consideration by the second group of theorists who regard translation equivalence as being essentially a transfer of the message from the SC to the TC and a pragmatic/semantic or functionally oriented approach to translation. Finally, there are other translation scholars who seem to stand in the middle, such as Baker for instance, who claims that equivalence is used 'for the sake of convenience—because most translators are used to it rather than because it has any theoretical status' (quoted in Kenny, 1998:77). 2.2.1 Vinay and Darbelnet and their definition of equivalence in translation Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalence-oriented translation as a procedure which 'replicates the same situation as in the original, whilst using completely different wording' (ibid.:342). They also suggest that, if this procedure is applied during the translation process, it can maintain the stylistic impact of the SL text in the TL text. According to them, equivalence is therefore the ideal method when the translator has to deal with proverbs, idioms, cliches, nominal or adjectival phrases and the onomatopoeia of animal sounds. With regard to equivalent expressions between language pairs, Vinay and Darbelnet claim that they are acceptable as long as they are listed in a bilingual dictionary as 'full equivalents'. However, later they note that glossaries and collections of idiomatic expressions 'can never be exhaustive'. They conclude by saying that 'the need for creating equivalences arises from the situation, and it is in the situation of the SL text that translators have to look for a solution'. Indeed, they argue that even if the semantic equivalent of an expression in the SL text is quoted in a dictionary or a glossary, it is not enough, and it does not guarantee a successful translation. They provide a number of examples to prove their theory, and the following expression appears in their list: Take one is a fixed expression which would have as an equivalent French translation Prenez-en un. However, if the expression appeared as a notice next to a basket of free samples in a large store, the translator would have to look for an equivalent term in a similar situation and use the expression Echantillon gratuit. 2.2.2 Jakobson and the concept of equivalence in difference Roman Jakobson's study of equivalence gave new impetus to the theoretical analysis of translation since he introduced the notion of 'equivalence in difference'. On the basis of his semiotic approach to language and his aphorism 'there is no signatum without signum' (1959:232), he suggests three kinds of translation: Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or paraphrase) Interlingual (between two languages) Intersemiotic (between sign systems) Jakobson claims that, in the case of interlingual translation, the translator makes use of synonyms in order to get the ST message across. This means that in interlingual translations there is no full equivalence between code units. According to his theory, 'translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes' Jakobson goes on to say that from a grammatical point of view languages may differ from one another to a greater or lesser degree, but this does not mean that a translation cannot be possible, in other words, that the translator may face the problem of not finding a translation equivalent. He acknowledges that 'whenever there is deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan-translations, neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by circumlocutions'. Jakobson provides a number of examples by comparing English and Russian language structures and explains that in such cases where there is no a literal equivalent for a particular ST word or sentence, then it is up to the translator to choose the most suitable way to render it in the TT. There seems to be some similarity between Vinay and Darbelnet's theory of translation procedures and Jakobson's theory of translation. Both theories stress the fact that, whenever a linguistic approach is no longer suitable to carry out a translation, the translator can rely on other procedures such as loan-translations, neologisms and the like. Both theories recognize the limitations of a linguistic theory and argue that a translation can never be impossible since there are several methods that the translator can choose. The role of the translator as the person who decides how to carry out the translation is emphasized in both theories. Both Vinay and Darbelnet as well as Jakobson conceive the translation task as something which can always be carried out from one language to another, regardless of the cultural or grammatical differences between ST and TT. It can be concluded that Jakobson's theory is essentially based on his semiotic approach to translation according to which the translator has to recode the ST message first and then s/he has to transmit it into an equivalent message for the TC. Заключение. Conclusion So we have finished our work and performed the following tasks: We have reviewed the basic notion of translation and defined its aims: Translation is a very young discipline in academic terms. Like any young discipline, it needs to draw on the findings and theories of other related disciplines in order to develop and formalize its own methods. Translation is a process of rendering a text, written piece or a speech by means of other languages. The difference of translation from retelling or other kinds of transfer of a given text is that that translation is a process of creating an original unity in contexts and forms of original. The object of literary translation is the literature itself. And its distinctive feature is a figurative-emotional impact on the reader, which is attained through a great usage of different linguistic means. We performed the lexical difficulties of translation and draw out the following rules: 1) The difficulty stylistic devices represents to a translator is based on word play, if in corresponding words of both languages are featured different signs. 2) The second reason, causing lexical difficulties to translation of literature is the difference in the semantic volume of a word. 3) The third reason presenting lexical difficulties in translation the difference in combinability. Words in languages have some definite relation characteristic only to the given language. 4)The accepted usage of words in a language. It is, of course related to the development of a given languages and formation of its lexical system. We revealed the question of equivalence and adequacy in translation and find out that: - V. G. Gak and Ju.Levin distinguish the following types of equivalents: formal, semantic and situational; - There is a fundamental difference between formal equivalence, on the