Docsity
Docsity

Prepara i tuoi esami
Prepara i tuoi esami

Studia grazie alle numerose risorse presenti su Docsity


Ottieni i punti per scaricare
Ottieni i punti per scaricare

Guadagna punti aiutando altri studenti oppure acquistali con un piano Premium


Guide e consigli
Guide e consigli


munday introducing translation studies, Appunti di Lingua Inglese

Talking about translation studies

Tipologia: Appunti

2014/2015

Caricato il 27/10/2015

elvira.giannetti
elvira.giannetti 🇮🇹

4.5

(13)

6 documenti

1 / 12

Toggle sidebar

Questa pagina non è visibile nell’anteprima

Non perderti parti importanti!

bg1
Introducing Translation Studies
Theories and applications
Jeremy Munday
Chapter 1: Main issues of translation studies:
1. Jacobson’s categories of translation:
1..aIntralingual;
1..b Interlingual;
1..cIntersemiotic (verbal F 0
E 0
non-verbal).
2. History of the discipline:
2..aFrom the late 18th to the 1960s grammar-translation method (replaced by
communicative approach in the 1960s and 1970s);
2..b The USA 1960s translation workshop concept based on Richards’s
reading workshops and practical criticism approach that began in 1920s;
running parallel to this approach was that of comparative literature;
2..cThe USA 1930s-1960s/70s – contrastive analysis;
2..d More systematic, and mostly linguistic-oriented, approach
1950s-1960s:
2..d..i J.-P. Vinay and J. Darbelnet (French/English);
2..d..ii A. Malblanc (French/German);
2..d..iii G. Mounin (linguistic issues of translation);
2..d..iv E. Nida (based on Chomsky’s generative grammar).
2..d..v James S. Holmes ’s “The name and nature of translation
studies” is considered to be the ‘founding statement’ of a new
discipline.
2..d..vi Hermans’s ‘Manipulation School’
2..d..vii Vieira’s Brazilian cannibalist school
2..d..viii Postcolonial theory
2..d..ix Venuti’s cultural-studies-oriented analysis
The Holmes/Toury ‘map’ of translation studies1:
Translation studies:
1‘Pure’
1.)a Theoretical (translation theory)
1.)b General
1.)c Partial
1.)c.()1 Medium restricted
1.)c.()1.()a By machine: Alone/
With human aid
1.)c.()1.()b By humans: Written/
Spoken: consecutive/simultaneous
1.)c.()2 Area restricted (specific
languages)
1.)c.()3 Rank restricted (word/sentence/
text)
1.)c.()4 Text-type restricted (genres:
literary, business, technical translations)
1.)c.()5 Time restricted (periods)
1.)c.()6 Problem restricted (specific
problems e.g. equivalence)
2‘Applied’
1.)c.()10 Translator training
1.)c.()10.)i Teaching evaluation methods
1.)c.()10.)ii Testing techniques
1.)c.()10.)iii Curriculum design
1.)c.()11 Translation aids
1.)c.()11.)i IT applications
1.)c.()11.)i.()1 translation software
1.)c.()11.)i.()2 on-line databases
1.)c.()11.)i.()3 use of internet
1.)c.()11.)ii Dictionaries
1.)c.()11.)iii Grammars
1.)c.()12 Translation criticism
1.)c.()12.)i Evaluation of translations
1.)c.()12.)ii Revision of students’ translations
1.)c.()12.)iii Reviews of published translations
1 Holmes mentions also translation policy (the translation scholar advising on the place of
translation in society).
6 The form of communication e.g. written.
5 Who is communicating and to whom.
4 What is being written about.
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa

Anteprima parziale del testo

Scarica munday introducing translation studies e più Appunti in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity!

Introducing Translation Studies Theories and applications Jeremy Munday

Chapter 1: Main issues of translation studies:

  1. Jacobson’s categories of translation: 1..aIntralingual; 1..b (^) Interlingual; 1..cIntersemiotic (verbal F 0E 0 non-verbal).
  2. History of the discipline: 2..aFrom the late 18 th^ to the 1960s – grammar-translation method (replaced by communicative approach in the 1960s and 1970s); 2..b The USA 1960s – translation workshop concept based on Richards’s reading workshops and practical criticism approach that began in 1920s; running parallel to this approach was that of comparative literature; 2..cThe USA 1930s-1960s/70s – contrastive analysis; 2..d More systematic, and mostly linguistic-oriented, approach 1950s-1960s: 2..d..i J.-P. Vinay and J. Darbelnet (French/English); 2..d..ii A. Malblanc (French/German); 2..d..iii G. Mounin (linguistic issues of translation); 2..d..iv E. Nida (based on Chomsky’s generative grammar). 2..d..v James S. Holmes ’s “The name and nature of translation studies” is considered to be the ‘founding statement’ of a new discipline. 2..d..vi (^) Hermans ’s ‘Manipulation School’ 2..d..vii Vieira ’s Brazilian cannibalist school 2..d..viii Postcolonial theory 2..d..ix Venuti ’s cultural-studies-oriented analysis

The Holmes/Toury ‘map’ of translation studies 1 : Translation studies:

1 ‘Pure’ 1.)a Theoretical (translation theory) 1.)b General 1.)c Partial 1.)c.()1 Medium restricted 1.)c.()1.()a By machine: Alone/ With human aid 1.)c.()1.()b By humans: Written/ Spoken: consecutive/simultaneous 1.)c.()2 Area restricted (specific languages) 1.)c.()3 Rank restricted (word/sentence/ text) 1.)c.()4 Text-type restricted (genres: literary, business, technical translations) 1.)c.()5 Time restricted (periods) 1.)c.()6 Problem restricted (specific problems e.g. equivalence)

2 ‘Applied’ 1.)c.()10 Translator training 1.)c.()10.)i Teaching evaluation methods 1.)c.()10.)ii Testing techniques 1.)c.()10.)iii Curriculum design 1.)c.()11 Translation aids 1.)c.()11.)i IT applications 1.)c.()11.)i.()1 translation software 1.)c.()11.)i.()2 on-line databases 1.)c.()11.)i.()3 use of internet 1.)c.()11.)ii Dictionaries 1.)c.()11.)iii Grammars 1.)c.()12 Translation criticism 1.)c.()12.)i Evaluation of translations 1.)c.()12.)ii Revision of students’ translations 1.)c.()12.)iii Reviews of published translations

(^1) Holmes mentions also translation policy (the translation scholar advising on the place of translation in society). (^6) The form of communication e.g. written. (^5) Who is communicating and to whom. (^4) What is being written about.

1.)d Descriptive (DTS) 1.)c.()7 Product oriented (examines existing translations) 1.)c.()8 Process oriented (what happens in the mind of a translator) 1.)c.()9 Function oriented (a study of context / ’socio-translation studies’ / cultural- studies-oriented translation) Chapter 2: Translation theory before the 20 th^ century:

Literal Free Adaptation

Up until the second half of the 20 th^ century

‘sterile’ debate over the ‘triad’ of ‘literal’, ‘free’ and ‘faithful’ translation

1st^ cent. BC Cicero^2 ‘Interpreter’! 3 ‘Orator’

4 th^ century St Jerome ‘Word-for- word’

!‘Sense-for- sense’

Ancient China!!

750-1250 Baghdad!!

More than 1000 years after St Jerome

Western society! Heretical (Etienne Dolet)

The French humanist, who was burnt in 1546

Etienne Dolet Avoid!

16 th^ century Martin Luther !everyday speech style

Before 17 th century

Fidelity Truth Letter Spirit

From 17 th century

Fidelity to meaning / truth / spirit

17th^ century England

Cowley !Imitation

17 th^ century England

John Dryden Metaphrase !Paraphrase Imitation

18th^ century England

A.F. Tytler ‘Adopt the very soul of the author’ (spirit)

19th^ century Schleiermacher (divided texts into business and philosophical)

!The reader toward the writer (alienating; foreignization – Venuti )

The writer toward the reader (naturalizing; domestication - Venuti )

19 th-early 20 th cent. Britain

F. Newman!! for a wide audience M. Arnold! for elite

Throughout the centuries debate on form vs. content occurred.

(^2) +Horace (^3) Preferred form.

Chapter 3: Equivalence and equivalent effect: In the 1950s and 1960s the place of circular debates around literal and free translation took the new debate revolved around certain key linguistic issues, among them those of meaning and equivalence, discussed by R. Jakobson in 1959. Over the following 20 years many further attempts were made to define the nature of equivalence. Jakobson :

  1. Meaning: the signifier=the signal of the signified (the concept).
  2. There is no full equivalence between code-units of different languages.
  3. (^) So, we should substitute not words, but messages.
  4. Only poetry is considered ‘untranslatable’ and requires ‘creative transposition’. Nida ’s ‘science of translating (subjective):
  5. Meaning: 1..aLinguistic; 1..b Referential (dictionary meaning); 1..cEmotive (connotative).
  6. Ways of determining meaning: 2..aHierarchical structuring (animal F 0E 0 dog, cow etc); 2..b Componential analysis (grandmother, mother, cousin etc); 2..cSemantic structure analysis (spirit can mean demon, angel, god, ghost, ethos, alcohol etc) F 0E 0 meaning depending on context.
  7. (^) 3-stage system of translation (Chomsky’s influence: deep/surface structure of a language): SL 1 F 0E 0 (analysis) F 0E 0 X F 0E 0 (transfer) F 0E 0Y F 0E 0 (restructuring) F 0E 0 TL^2
  8. Equivalence: 4..aFormal (form and content); 4..b Dynamic (equivalent response of: t2 reader on t2 as t1 reader on t1) (closest natural equivalent).
  9. ‘Correspondence in meaning must have priority over correspondence in style’.
  10. Reader-based orientation. Newmark ’s semantic and communicative translation:
  11. Replaces Nida’s division with semantic (resembles formal equivalence) and communicative (resembles dynamic equivalence) translation.
  12. Nida’s division inoperant if the text is out of TL space and time.
  13. Dynamic equivalence: are readers ‘to be handed everything on a plate’?
  14. Semantic translation differs from literal in that it ‘respects context’, interprets and explains (metaphors). Literal translation is to be the best approach in both semantic and communicative translation. If semantic translation would result in an ‘abnormal’ TT or would not secure equivalent effect in the TL, then communicative translation should win out. Parameter Semantic translation (art) Communicative translation (craft) Transmitter/addressee focus

Transmitter as an individual; should help TT reader with connotations if they’re crucial.

Subjective, TT reader focused, oriented towards a specific lg and culture. Culture SL TL Time and origin Not fixed, new translation for every generation. Rooted in its own contemporary context. Relation to ST Inferior: ‘loss’ of meaning. May be better. Use of form of SL ‘Loyalty’ to ST author. ‘Loyalty’ to TL forms. Form of TL Tendency to overtranslate. Tendency to undertranslate. Appropriateness Serious literature, autobiography, important (e.g. political) statement.

Non-literary, technical, informative, publicity, popular fiction. Criterion for evaluation Accuracy of reproduction of the significance of ST

Accuracy of communication of ST message in TT. Koller ’s Korrespondenz and Äquivalenz:

(^1) Source language. (^2) Target language.

Field Contrastive linguistics Science of translation Research area Correspondence phenomena (corresponding structures and sentences of different lgs)

Equivalence phenomena (hierarchy of utterances and texts in different lgs according to equivalence criterion) Knowledge Langue parole Competence L2 competence Translation competence

Type of equivalence What How attainable Research focus Denotative Equivalence of the extralinguistic content of a text

Analysis of correspondences and their interaction with textual factors

Lexis

Connotative Lexical choices e.g. between near-synonyms

The most difficult Formality (poetic, slang), social usage, geographical origin, stylistic effect (archaic, plain), frequency, range (general, technical), evaluation, emotion Text-normative Text types Functional text analysis Usage in different communicative situations Pragmatic Nida’s dynamic equivalence

First of all: particular readership

Communicative conditions for different receiver groups Formal Related to the form and aesthetics of the text

An analogy of form un TL, using the possibilities of it and creating new ones

Rhyme, metaphor and other stylistic form

Tertium comparationis, an invariant against which 2 text segments can be measured to determine variation.

Chapter 5: Functional theories of translation:

K. Reiss’s text types: Text type Informative (e.g. reference work)

Expressive (e.g. poem)

Operative (e.g. advertisement)

Audiomedial (e.g. film)

Lg function Represent objects and facts

Express sender’s attitude Make an appeal to text receiver

‘supplementary’ method (supplementing written words with visual images and music)

Lg dimension Logical Aesthetic Dialogic

Text focus Content-focused Form-focused Appellative-focused

TT should Transmit referential content

Transmit aesthetic form Elicit desired response

Translation method

‘plain prose’ ‘identifying method (perspective of ST author)

‘adaptive’, equivalent effect

Nord adds to 3 types of language function a fourth ‘phatic’ function, covering lg that establishes or maintains contact between parties involved in the communication (e.g. greetings).

Holz-Manttari ’s translational action model for non-literary translations with

  1. (^) its roles and players: 1..aThe initiator; 1..b The commissioner (contacts the translator); 1..cThe ST producer; 1..d The TT producer; 1..eThe TT user; 1..f The TT receiver.
  2. Content: 2..aFactual information; 2..b Overall communicative strategy.
  3. (^) Form: 3..aTerminology; 3..b Cohesive elements. J. Vermeer ’s skopos theory: knowing the purpose and the function of translation is crucial (adequacy over equivalence). Ch. Nord ’s translation-oriented text analysis:
  4. 2 kinds of translation: 1..aDocumentary translation (a reader knows that he’s reading a translation); 1..b Instrumental translation (a reader doesn’t know that).
  5. 3 aspects of functionalist approaches particularly useful in translator training: 2..aThe importance of the translation commission; 2..b The role of ST analysis; 2..cThe functional hierarchy of translation problems.

Chapter 6: Discourse and register approaches:

Halliday ’s model of language and discourse based on systemic functional grammar (lg=communication): Influence: Sociocultural environment Genre Register (field 4 , tenor 5 , mode^6 ) Discourse semantics (ideational, interpersonal, textual) Lexicogrammar (transitivity, modality, theme-rheme/cohesion) Field Ideational Transitivity

Tenor Interpersonal Modality

Mode Textual Thematic and information structures/ cohesion

House ’s model of translation quality assessment:

  1. Scheme for analyzing and comparing original and translation texts: Language/text Field (subject matter and social action)

Tenor (participant relationship: -author’s provenance and stance -social role relationship -social attitude)

Mode (-medium [simple/complex] -participation [simple/complex])

Register

Genre (generic purpose) Individual textual function

  1. Translation: 2..aOvert; 2..b Covert.

Baker ’s text and pragmatic level analysis:

  1. Textual function
  2. Cohesion
  3. Pragmatics: 3..aCoherence (depends on receiver’s expectations and experience of the world); 3..b Presupposition (what the speaker supposes a listener should know); 3..cImplicature (what the speaker implies).

Hatim and Mason ’s semiotic level of context and discourse: Text elements:

  1. Stable (translated fairly literally);
  2. Dynamic (not). Chapter 7: Systems theories:

Chapter 8: Varieties of cultural studies: Dziura: brak 2 stron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (p.126-127) Chapter 8 "Varieties of cultural studies" examines Lefevere (1992), who treats translation as "rewriting" and identifies ideological pressures on translated texts. This chapter also looks at the writing of Simon (1996) on gender in translation, and at postcolonial translation theories which stress the part that translation has played in the colonization process and the image of the colonized (cf. Bassnett and Trivedi 1999).

Lefevere (1992) treats translation as "rewriting" and identifies ideological and poetological pressures on translated texts. Translation functions are controlled by the following factors:

  1. Professionals within the literary system;
  2. Patronage outside the literary system: 2..aThe ideological component; 2..b The economic component; 2..cThe status component. 2..d If a-c come from the same source – patronage is undifferentiated; if not - differentiated.
  3. The dominant poetics: 3..aLiterary devices; 3..b The concept of the role of literature. Simon compares the status of translation throughout the centuries to that of women’s and presents pro-feminist methods in translation. Postcolonial translation theories :
  4. Spivak : ‘translationese’ eliminates the identity of politically less powerful individuals and cultures.
  5. Spivak : compares the status of translation throughout the centuries to that of colonies.
  6. (^) Power relations: translation as the colonizer’s device used against the colonized.
  7. S. Bassnett and H. Trivedi ’s translational linked to transnational (translation=battleground). Brazilian cannibalism: the colonizers and their lg are devoured, their life force invigorating the devourers, who transform it according to their needs. The Irish context: postcolonialism in Europe.

Chapter 9: Translating the foreign: the (in)visibility of translation: A. Berman’s ‘negative analytic’ of translation that prevents the foreign coming through. ‘Deforming tendencies’:

  1. (^) Rationalization;
  2. Clarification;
  3. Expansion;
  4. Ennoblement;
  5. Qualitative impoverishment;
  6. Quantitative impoverishment;
  7. The destruction of rhythms;
  8. The destruction of underlying networks of signification;
  9. The destruction of linguistic patternings;
  10. The destruction of vernacular 1 networks or their exoticization;
  11. (^) The destruction of expressions and idioms;
  12. The effacement of the superimposition of languages. ‘Positive analytic’ = literal translation. Venuti:
  13. The invisibility of the translator in contemporary Anglo-American culture.
  14. Domestication (dominant in connection with the translator’s invisibility) – ‘the author towards the reader’.
  15. Foreignization – ‘the reader towards the writer’ – resistancy – minoritizing (desirable). (^1) Lg.
  1. ‘Call for action’ – ‘visibility’ + ‘foreignization’.