User:Exotorific/sandbox
Similar concepts[edit]
Paraphrase[edit]
In John Dryden’s 1680 preface to his translation of Ovid's Epistles, he proposed dividing translation into three parts called: metaphrase, paraphrase and imitation.[1] Metaphrase is word-for-word and line by line translation from one language into another.[2] Paraphrase is sense-for-sense translation where the message of the author is kept but his words are not so strictly followed as his sense, which too can be altered or amplified.[3] Imitation is the use of either metaphrase or paraphrase but the translator has the liberty to choose which is appropriate and how the message will be conveyed.[4]
Leaving the reader in peace[edit]
In 1813, during his “Über die Verschiedenen Methoden des Übersetzens” lecture,[5] Friedrich Schleiermacher proposed the idea where “[E]ither the translator leaves the author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him, or he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and he moves the author towards him”.[6]
Dynamic equivalence[edit]
In 1964,[7] Eugene Nida described translation as having two different types of equivalence: formal and dynamic equivalence.[8] Formal equivalence is when there is focus on the message itself, in both form and content.[9] The message in the target language should match the message in the source language as closely as possible.[10] In contrast, there is less concern with matching the message in the target language with the message in the source language in dynamic equivalence.[11] The goal is, however, to produce the same relationship between target text and target audience, as there was with the original source text and its audience.[12]
Communicative translation [edit]
In 1981, Peter Newmark referred to translation as either semantic (word-for-word) or communicative (sense-for-sense).[13] He stated that semantic translation is one that is source language bias, literal and faithful to the source text and communicative translation is target language bias, free and idiomatic.[14] A semantic translation’s goal is to stay as close as possible to the semantic and syntactic structures of the source language, allowing the exact contextual meaning of the original.[15] A communicative translation’s goal is to produce on the readers an effect as close as possible to that produced upon the readers of the original.[16]
Idiomatic translation[edit]
In addition to these concepts, in 1990, Brian Mossop presented his concept of idiomatic and unidiomatic translation.[17] Idiomatic translation is when the message of the source text is conveyed the way a target language writer would convey it, rather than staying to the way in which it was conveyed in the source text.[18] Unidiomatic translation is innovative and translates individual words.[19]
Domesticated translation[edit]
In 1994, also in modern Translation Studies, Lawrence Venuti introduced the concepts of domestication and foreignization, which are based on concepts from Friedrich Schleiermacher's 1813 lecture.[20] Domestication is the adaption of culture-specific terms or cultural context, where as foreignization is the preservation of the original cultural context of the source text (in terms of settings, names, etc.).[21] Venuti also described domestication as being fluent and transparent strategies that result in acculturation,[22] where “a cultural other is domesticated, made intelligible”.[23] Schleiermacher's distinction between "bringing the author to the reader" (domestication) and "taking the reader to the author"[24] (foreignization), dealt with a social concern and Venuti’s distinction between domestication and foreignization deals with ethical principles.[25]
- ^ Lawrence Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader. 3rd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2012.), page 38.
- ^ Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader, 3rd ed., 38.
- ^ Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader, 3rd ed., 38.
- ^ Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader, 3rd ed., 38.
- ^ Yves Gambier, Luc Van Doorslaer, Handbook of Translation Studies, (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub., 2010.), 40.
- ^ Gambier, Handbook of Translation Studies, 40.
- ^ Shabnam Shakernia, “Study of Nida’s (Formal and Dynamic Equivalence) and Newmark’s (Semantic and Communicative Translation) Translating Theories on Two Short Stories”, Merit Research Journal of Education and Review 2, no. 1 (2013): 001-007. Accessed December 4, 2016. http://www.meritresearchjournals.org/er/index.htm, page 002.
- ^ Lawrence Venuti,. The Translation Studies Reader. (New York: Routledge, 2000.), page 129.
- ^ Lawrence Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader. (New York: Routledge, 2000.), page 129.
- ^ Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader, 129.
- ^ Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader, 129.
- ^ Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader, 129.
- ^ Peter Newmark, Approaches to Translation, (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981)
- ^ Newmark, Approaches to Translation, 31
- ^ Newmark, Approaches to Translation, 39
- ^ Newmark, Approaches to Translation, 39
- ^ Brian Mossop, "Translating Institutions and “Idiomatic” Translation." Meta: Journal des traducteurs 35, no. 2 (January 1990)
- ^ Mossop, “Translating Institutions,”, 343
- ^ Mossop, “Translating Institutions,”, 343
- ^ Gambier, Handbook of Translation Studies, 40.
- ^ Gambier, Handbook of Translation Studies, 40.
- ^ Gambier, Handbook of Translation Studies, 40.
- ^ Lawrence Venuti, "Genealogies of Translation Theory: Schleiermacher." TTR : Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 4, no. 2 (1991)
- ^ Douglas Robinson, ed. Western Translation Theory From Herodotus to Nietzsche. (Manchester: St. Jerome., 2002)
- ^ Gambier, Handbook of Translation Studies, 40.