11.TranslationEquivalence.pptVIP

11. Translation Equivalence V. Ivir (1981) Formal Correspondence vs. Translation Equivalence Revisited, Poetics Today, 51-59 Ivir (1978) Teorija i tehnika prevo?enja. Centar “Karlova?ka gimnazija” Chesterman, A. (1998) Contrastive Functional Analysis. J. Benjamins Fawcett, P. (1997) Translation and Language. J. Benjamins Munday, J. (2001) Introducing Translation Studies. Routledge Marton (1968), Ivir (1978, 1970, 1991), Krzeszowsky (1071, 1972), Raabe (1972) FC TE:different though not unrelated concepts Aim of paper: place an role of CA TR in FC place and role of CA TR theory in TE: both FC TE are needed in TR and CA Main topics: TE FC FC TE in the Process of TR (Model) TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE - views TE as a product TE as a process TE viewed as a TEXT / product STATIC VIEW, i.e. linguistic view: TEXT as a unit of TR TR - the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL) - Catford 1965-20) rendition of a text from one language to another (Bolinger 1966:130) TE holds between linguistic units (texts): ? TLRs task - to find those units in SL and TL TR - also concerned with: textual features text structure (lower units) text typology (Bühler, Reiss, Nord) TR viewed as a process DYNAMIC VIEW, i.e. COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH = message as the basic unit of comunication TR = substituting messages in one language for messages in another language (Jakobson 1959:235), i.e.: TR = reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the message of the source language (Nida 1969:495) COMMUNICATIVE VIEW of TR: TRANSLATION viewed: NOT as a static relationship between texts in different languages BUT: TR as a product of the dynamic process of communication between: the SENDER of the original message and the ULTIMATE RECEIVER of the translated message via the TRANSLATOR, who is the receiver of the original message and the sender of the translated message MESSAGE = DEF: configurat