Филологические науки
жүктеу/скачать 1,6 Mb. Pdf көрінісі
|
| ‘equivalence’
was introduced indicating the correspondence of the content. It means the semantic proximity of the original and the translation. In this regard, in the XIX century it has been developed “theory of untranslatability.” This linguistic theory of Wilhelm von Humboldt is definitely one of the most influential concepts of linguistics in XIX century. Then, the main focus was the study of linguistic features of the language, the disclosure of all the unique, distinguishing it from other languages: unique structure features, grammatical structure and vocabulary of each individual language. All of this is the peculiarity of language, its national characteristics. For these reasons, it has been suggested the impossibility of translation of these features, both linguistic and cultural into another language. It was assumed that the translation must be exhaustively reproduce the original and be completely its identity, hence the translation, especially literary text is fundamentally impossible. Translation appeared as impossible task because it is a process in which loss of meaning or loss of elements inevitably. There are two approaches, both of which were recognized unsatisfactory. The first one is exactly keep the script, sacrificing originality of the source language. The second one is to move away from the original text and to reproduce the original text in the target language, focusing on its features and lingvocultural aspects (i.e. free translation, adaptation). On this basis it was stated that the translation as an accurate reproduction of the original, is not possible. From the perspective of contemporary translation studies, both positions are wrong. Despite the fact that absolute, complete rendering of all senses of the original is not possible, translator is unable to recreate the original text in another language. According to Edward Sapir there is a ‘extralinguistic art which is available to transmission without loss of the resources of a foreign language, even specifically language arts, and essentially untranslatable units’ [1, c. 196]. Based on this quote, translation, even though being not identical in all respects to the original, is possible. However, the lack of absolute identity does not preclude the implementation of crosslanguage communication. In the history of translation the problem of equivalence was considered from different perspectives. The opinions of scholars about the interpretation of equivalence differ. Some absolutely reject the notion of equivalence as a ISSN 2411-8745 Number 1 (2016), 103 - 110 ҚазХҚжӘТУ ХАБАРШЫСЫ «ФИЛОЛОГИЯ ҒЫЛЫМДАРЫ» сериясы 105 concept explaining that is not suitable for Translation. Mary SnellHornby in his book ‘Translation studies. An integrated approach’ also supports the view that the concept of ‘equivalence’ cannot be used as a base in the theory of translation, saying that ‘a term equivalence is undefined and uncertain, it also presents the illusion of symmetry between languages and it distorts the basic problems of translation’ [2, c. 22]. The notion of equivalence was under the criticism for several reasons. Van den Broeck and Larouz consider the effect of equivalence impossible, since there are a number of questions: how can you measure this effect? And how can the text have the same effect and cause the same reaction in different times and in different cultures? [3, c. 29]. On the other hand, such scholars as Reiss, Vermeer, Jackobson, Nida argue that equivalence, characterized by its own specifics exists. The main difficulties associated with the formation of the concept of equivalence, caused primarily by a multilevelness of the equivalence and the heterogeneity of the concept associated with the semantic, structural, functional, communicative, pragmatic, genre, and other characteristics. And all these parameters must be kept in the translation. Depending on the text, as well as the conditions and methods of translation will change their degree of actual implementation [4, c. 22]. Dindo Gorlee, considering this problem, noted that “the picture is further complicated by the many definitions used with the term that is often used not only for descriptive purposes (ie, neutral), but as a charge against a priori requirement that the text should be responsible to be considered an adequate translation. A variety of types of equivalence proposed in the papers on the theory of translation is amazing: in addition to the term “translational equivalence”, perhaps the most general terms, can be found such as the “functional equivalence”, “stylistic equivalence”, “formal equivalence”, “textual equivalence”, “communicative equivalence”, linguistic equivalence”, “pragmatic equivalence”, “semantic equivalence”, “dynamic equivalence”, “ontological equivalence, etc” [5, c. 78]. Y. Nida in his book ‘science of translating’ says that it is impossible to consider the principle of correspondence in the translation, without acknowledging that there are many different types of translation. The differences in the types of translation can be attributed to three main factors: 1) the nature of the message; 2) the intention of the author; 3) the type of audience. On this basis, the equivalence of the text should be considered under the relevant factors referred to in each situation that will change the very concept of equivalence, depending on the linguistic situation [6, c. 335]. ISSN 2411-8745 Number 1 (2016), 103 - 110 ИзвестИя КазУМОиМя серия «ФИЛОЛОГИЧесКИе НАУКИ» 106 V.S. Vinogradov considers that the equivalence of the translation script is always a relative term. It can be argued that any translation will never be completely identical to the text of the original. The degree of convergence with the original depends on many factors the skill of the translator, comparing the characteristics of language and culture, the way of translation, the nature of the source text. According to Vinogradov, the equivalence in translation theory should be understood as “the preservation of the relative equality of content, semantic, stylistic and functional – communicative information contained in the original and translation” [4, c. 18]. Furthermore, the equivalence of the original and translation – this is primarily a community of understanding contained in the text information, including that which affects not only the mind but also the feelings of the recipient, and that not only explicitly expressed in the text, but also implicitly referred to the subtext”. This definition gives the L.S Barkhudarov [7, c. 186]. Definitions of V.S Vinogradov and L.S Barkhudarov extensive include a variety of requirements for equivalence of translation, among which are the following general requirements: preservation of equality in the transmission of different types of information, i.e, a content of the plan. Equivalence according to A. Schweitzer is hierarchy category. Levels range from parsing through the жүктеу/скачать 1,6 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|