Lingua inglese III - Appunti
translation of the Bible and other religious texts was central to translation theory for over a thousand
years. Early theorists tended to be translators who presented a justification for their approach in a
preface to the translation, often paying little attention to (or no having access to) what other
before them had said. proposed triad of the late seventeenth century marked the
beginning of more systematic and precise definition of translation, while respect
for the foreign text was to have considerable influence over scholars in modern times.
Describes some of the major issues that are discussed in writings about translation up to the middle
od the twentieth century. This huge range of over two thousand years , beginning with Cicero in the
first century BCE, focuses on the literal vs. free translation debate, an imprecise and circular debate
from which theorists have emerged only in the last fifty years. The chapter describes some of the
classic writings on translation over the years, making a selection of the most well-known and readily
available sources. It aims to initiate discussion on some of the key issues.
This chapter has examined important questions of translation raised by linguistic in the 1950s and
1960s. The key terms are meaning and equivalence, discussed by Roman Jakobson in 1959 and
crucially and propose that translation should aim for equivalent effect. Despite subsequent
questioning of the feasibility of that goal, Nida’ s great achievement is to have drawn translation
theory away from the stagnant literal vs. free debate and into the modern era. His concept of
formal and dynamic equivalence place the receiver in the centre of the equation and have
exerted huge influence over subsequent theoreticians, especially in Germany.
Deals with the concepts of meaning, equivalence and equivalent effect . Translation theory in the
1960s under Eugene Nida shifted the emphasis to the receiver of the message. This chapter
encompasses Nida’ s generative-influenced model of translation transfer and his concepts for
formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.
The 1950s and 1960s saw the emergence of attempts at detailed taxonomies of small linguistic
changes (shift) in ST-TT pairs. Vinay and Darbelnet’ s classical taxonomy continues to exert influence
today and was useful in bringing to light a wide range of different translation techniques. However,
like Catford, who in the 2960s applied a systematic contrastive linguistic approach to translation,
there is a static linguistic model. Fuzziness of category boundaries and the automatic counting of
shifts are problems that have continued to affect later attempt, such a van Leuven-Zwart’ s, whose
model tries to systematize the evaluation of an ST-TT pair and relate shifts to higher-level discourse
levels. Another approach to the analysis of shifts came from Czechoslovakia in the 1960s and 1970s,
where Levy’, Popovic and Miko paid greater attention to the translation of style.
Details attempts that have been made to provide a taxonomy of the linguistic changes or shifts
which occur in translation. The main model described here is Vinay and Darbelnet’s classic
taxonomy, but reference is also made to Catford’ s linguistic model and van Leuven-Zwart’ s
translation shift approach from the 1980s.
In chapter 4, we discuss taxonomic linguistic approaches that have attempted to produce a
comprehensive model of translation shift analysis. Chapter 7 considers modern descriptive
translation studies; its leading proponent, Gideon Toury, has moved away from a prescriptive
definition of equivalence and, accepting as given that a TT is equivalent to its ST, instead seeks to
identify the web of relations between two. Yet, there is still a great deal of practically oriented
writing on translation that continues a prospective discussion of equivalence. Translator training
courses also, perhaps inevitably ,have this focus : errors by trainee translators are often corrected
prescriptively according to a notion of equivalence held by the trainer . For this reason,
equivalence is an issue that will remain central to the practice of translation, even if translation
studies and translation theory has, for the time being at least, marginalized it.
Functionalist and communicative translation theories advanced in Germany in the 1970s and 1980s
moved translation from a static linguistic phenomenon to being considered as an act of
intercultural communication. Reiss’s initial work links language function, text type, genre and
translation strategy. Reiss’s approach was later coupled to Vermeer’ s highly influential skopos
theory, where the translation strategy is decided by the function of the TT in the target culture. The
skopos theory is part of the model of translational action also proposed by Holz- Mänttäri, who
places professional commercial translation within a sociocultural context, using the jargon of
business and management .Translation is viewed as a communicative transaction involving initiator,
commissioner, and the producers, users and receivers of the ST and TT. In this model, the ST is
“dethroned” and the translation is judge not by equivalence of meaning but the commission.
Nord’s model, designed for training translators, retains the functional context but includes a more
detailed text-analysis model for the ST.
Covers Reiss and Vermeer ‘s text-type and skopos theory of the 1970s and 1980s and Nord’s text-
linguistic approach. In this chapter, translation is analyzed according to text type and function in
the TL culture, and prevailing concepts of text analysis- such as word order , information structure
and thematic progression- are employed.
The discourse and register analysis approaches described in this chapter are based on the model
of Hallidayan systemic functional linguistics which links microlevel linguistic choices to the
communicative function of a text and the sociocultural meaning behind it. House’s (1977, 1997)
model of register analysis is designed to compare an ST-TT pair for situational variables, genre,
function and language, and to identify both the translation method employed (covert or overt)
and translation errors. It has been criticized for is confusing and scientific jargon; however, it
provides a systematic means of uncovering some important considerations for the translator. Work
by both Baker(1992) and Hatim and Mason (1990, 1997) bring together a range of ideas from
pragmatics and sociolinguistics that are relevant for translation and translation analysis. Baker’s
analysis is particularly useful in focusing on the thematic and cohesion structures of a text. Hatim
and Mason, also working within the Hallidayan model, move beyond House’s register analysis and
begin to consider the way social and power relations are negotiated and communicated in
translation. This ideological level is further developed in the culturally oriented theories .
Moves on to consider House’ register analysis model and the development of discourse-oriented
approaches in the 1990s by Baker and Hatim and Mason, who make use of Hllidayan linguistic to
examine translation as communication within a sociocultural context.
Even-Zohar’ s polysystem theory moves the study of translations out of a static linguistic analysis of
shifts and obsession with one-to-one equivalence and into an investigation of the position of
+1 anno fa
I contenuti di questa pagina costituiscono rielaborazioni personali del Publisher melody_gio di informazioni apprese con la frequenza delle lezioni di Lingua inglese III e studio autonomo di eventuali libri di riferimento in preparazione dell'esame finale o della tesi. Non devono intendersi come materiale ufficiale dell'università Verona - Univr o del prof Scienze letterarie Prof.
Acquista con carta o conto PayPal
Scarica il file tutte le volte che vuoi
Paga con un conto PayPal per usufruire della garanzia Soddisfatto o rimborsato