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

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?]

Well

Differences at many levels:

- gender: Der Tod- aspect: do=fare/faccio/fai- semantic field:

1) spiffero2) Friday 13th 3) black in the West, white in

India

La sua malattia è una realtà = Her illness is GENUINEL’arte come imitazione della realtà = Art as imitation of

NATUREProgetti che diventano realtà = Plans which are REALISEDSpesso non vediamo la realtà = Often we don’t see THINGSHa il senso della realtà = He is REALISTICLa realtà è dura = LIFE is hardBisogna tenere presente la realtà locale = We must keep

local NEEDS in mindLa realtà economica = The economic SITUATION

languages differ in what they MUST convey and not in what they MAY convey

Roman Jakobson

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:

DEEP STRUCTURE

(underlying, made of core semantic relations)

SURFACE STRUCTURE

(subject to phonological and morphemic rules)

Transformational 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

Greet one another with a holy kiss

=

Give one another a hearty handshake??

Is equivalence really possible?

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

Transmitter/addressee focus

Culture

Time and origin

SEMANTIC TRANS

Focus on the thought processes of the transmitter

Remains with the ST culture

Not fixed: trans. needs to be done anew every time

COMMUNICATIVE TR

TT focused, oriented towards a specific language and culture

Transfers foreign elements in its own contemporary context

Rooted in its own contemporary context

Comparison of Newmark's semantic and communicative translation

PARAMETER

Relation to ST

Use of forms of SL

Form of TL

Appropriateness

SEMANTIC TRANS

Always 'inferior' to ST, 'loss' of meaning

If ST deviates, deviation must be replicated

More complex, detailed, concentrated

For serious literature

COMMUNICATIVE TR

May be 'better' than the ST, 'gain' of force and clarity

Loyalty to TL norms

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.