Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page97

STandTTwordssupposedlyrefertothesamethingintherealworld,i.e.on

thebasisoftheirreferentialordenotativeequivalence;theSTandTTwords

triggeringthesameorsimilarassociationsinthemindsofnativespeakersofthe

twolanguages,i.e.theirconnotativeequivalence;theSTandTTwordsbeing

usedinthesameorsimilarcontextsintheirrespectivelanguages,i.e.what

Koller(1989:102)callstextnormativeequivalence;theSTandTTwords

havingthesameeffectontheirrespectivereaders,i.e.pragmatic(Koller

1989:102)ordynamicequivalence(Nida1964);theSTandTTwordshaving

similarorthographicorphonologicalfeatures,orformalequivalence .Baker

(1992)extendstheconceptofequivalencetocoversimilarityinSTandTT

informationflowandinthecohesiverolesSTandTTdevicesplayintheir

respectivetexts.Shecallsthesetwofactorscombinedtextualequivalence.

Newman(1994:4695)stressesthatnotallthevariablesintranslationare

relevantineverysituation,andthattranslatorsmustdecidewhichconsiderations

shouldbegivenpriorityatanyonetime,thusestablishingakindoffunctional

equivalence(seealsoNeubert1994).

Kade(1968)andotherwritersonlexicalequivalence,inparticularintheareaof

terminology(see,forexample,Arntz1993;Hann1992aandb),combinethe

abovequalitativedistinctionswithaquantitativeschemethatcategorizes

equivalencerelationshipsaccordingtowhetherthereis:asingleexpressionin

theTLforasingleSLexpression,i.e.onetooneequivalence;morethanone

TLexpressionforasingleSLexpression,i.e.onetomanyequivalence;aTL

expressionthatcoverspartofaconceptdesignatedbyasingleSLexpression,

i.e.onetopartofoneequivalence;ornoTLexpressionforanSL

expression,i.e.nilequivalence.Thisquantitative,lexicalapproachreflectsan

earlierconcernwithlanguagesystems(seebelow)andhasbeencriticized

preciselybecauseitisrestrictedtothewordlevelandalsobecauseitassumes

thatthelanguagesystemcanbeequatedwithconcreterealizationintext(Snell

Hornby1988:20).

Thenatureofequivalence

Writerswhohaveaddressedtheproblemofthenatureofequivalenceinclude

Catford(1965,1994)andPym(1992a).Catfordpositsanextralinguistic

domainofobjects,persons,emotions,memories,history,etc.(situationin

Firthian/Hallidayanterms),featuresofwhichmayormustachieveexpressionin

agivenlanguage.Translationalequivalenceoccurs,hesuggests,whenSTsand

TTsarerelatabletoatleastsomeofthesamefeaturesofthisextralinguistic

reality,thatiswhenSTsandTTshaveapproximatelythesamereferents

(1965:50,1994:4739).Catfordthusprioritizesreferentialmeaninghere,

althoughhisholisticviewofsituationintheoryallowsforotherprioritiestobe

established.Bassnett(1980/1991:6),amongstothers,hasfoundthisfocustoo

narrow,andFrawley(1984)isscepticalofanyapproachtotranslationthat

appealstoidentityofextralinguisticreferents:‘Theworldsandpossibleworlds

differ,andthequestionofreferentisnoteventhequestiontopose’(ibid.:164).

Catfordalsocomesundercriticism(seeSnellHornby1988:20)forusing

simplistic,inventedsentencestoexemplifyhiscategoriesoftranslational

equivalence,andforlimitinghisanalysistothelevelofthesentence.Catford’s

approachmayhavebeencriticized,butfewalternativeshavebeenputforward.

Theproblemofpinningdowntheessentialnatureofequivalenceseemstobe

relatedtotheproblemofpinningdownthenatureoflinguisticmeaningitself.

Pym(1992a)avoidsthisdifficultybymovingawayfromthestrictlylinguisticto

viewingtranslationasatransaction,andequivalenceasequalityofexchange

value.Equivalencebecomesanegotiableentity,withtranslatorsdoingthe

negotiation.TheideaoftranslationasnegotiationisdevelopedbyEco(2003).

Evenincaseswhereatranslationpriorityhasalreadybeenestablished–for

example,atranslatormayhavedecidedtoattempttorecreateinthetranslation

thesameeffectaswasintendedintheoriginal(dynamicequivalence)–many

outcomesarepossible;inthiscasetherearemanypossiblehypothesesastothe

intentionoftheoriginaltext/author,anditisthetranslatorwhoultimately

negotiatesasolution(ibid.:56).