The basic idea is that all theories respond to one central problem: translation can be defined by equivalence, but there are many reasons why equivalence is not a stable concept. (Pym 2010)

Virtual meaning – actualized meaning I would like more information on the well water purifier. Are you feeling well today? It would be well to ask him once more [sarebbe opportuno...] It was well for him that you were here [fu una fortuna per lui che...] Well then, are you coming? [allora, vieni?] Well

Differences at many levels: - gender: Der Tod - aspect: do=fare/faccio/fai - semantic field: 1) spiffero 2) Friday 13 th 3) black in the West, white in India

La sua malattia è una realtà = Her illness is GENUINE L’arte come imitazione della realtà = Art as imitation of NATURE Progetti che diventano realtà = Plans which are REALISED Spesso non vediamo la realtà = Often we don’t see THINGS Ha il senso della realtà = He is REALISTIC La realtà è dura = LIFE is hard Bisogna tenere presente la realtà locale = We must keep local NEEDS in mind La realtà economica = The economic SITUATION

languages differ in what they MUST convey and not in what they MAY convey Roman Jakobson

translation means “substituting messages in one language not for separate code-units but for entire messages in some other language”

Roman Jakobson “The translator recodes and transmits a message received from another source. Thus translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes”

Eugene A. Nida ( ) Attempts to make the study of translation more scientific: > Central for Nida: to move away from the old idea that a word has a fixed meaning; a word acquires meaning through its context and can produce varying responses according to culture

Nida System for the analysis of MEANING: Meaning can be broken down into LINGUISTICREFERENTIALEMOTIVE Techniques to determine the meaning of different linguistic items: - hierarchical structures - componential analysis - semantic structure analysis

Nida < Noam Chomsky Sentences characterised by 2 levels of representation governed by rules: DEEP STRUCTURE (underlying, made of core semantic relations) SURFACE STRUCTURE (subject to phonological and morphemic rules) Transformational rules >

Most basic structure relations are called KERNEL SENTENCES “basic structural elements out of which language build its elaborate surface structures”

Nida 3-stage system of translation

Nida's 4 basic functional classes: - events (verbs) - objects (nouns) - abstracts (adjectives) - relationals (prepositions and conjunctions)

The message is transformed into the surface structure in 3 stages: 1-Literal meaning 2- Minimal transfer 3- Literary transfer “Egeneto anthr ō pos, apestalmenos para theou, onoma aut ō I ō ann ē s” (John 1:6) 1- became/happened man, sent from God, name to-him John 2-There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John 3- A man, named John, was sent by God

Nida's system to classify equivalence FORMAL EQUIVALENCE: focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content […] following the words and textual patterns of the ST closely DYNAMIC (or FUNCTIONAL) EQUIVALENCE: tries to recreate the function the words might have had in their original situation > PRINCIPAL OF EQUIVALENT EFFECT: the success of translation depends on achieving equivalent response

Greet one another with a holy kiss = Give one another a hearty handshake?? Is equivalence really possible? Lamb of God = Seal of God??

Peter Newmark ( ) Total equivalence virtually impossible to achieve. Equivalent effect is illusory. He suggests new terms: SEMANTIC TRANSLATION: attempts to render as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original > formal value of the source text COMMUNICATIVE TRANSLATION: attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original > needs of the addressee

Peter Newmark word-for-word translation is not only the best, it is the only valid method of translation BUT... If semantic translation is abnormal, communicative translation wins out bissiger Hund = beware the dog

Comparison of Newmark's semantic and communicative translation PARAMETER Transmitter/addres see focus Culture Time and origin SEMANTIC TRANS Focus on the thought processes of the transmitter Remains with the ST culture Not fixed: trans. needs to be done anew every time COMMUNICATIVE TR TT focused, oriented towards a specific language and culture Transfers foreign elements in its own contemporary context Rooted in its own contemporary context

Comparison of Newmark's semantic and communicative translation PARAMETER Relation to ST Use of forms of SL Form of TL Appropriateness SEMANTIC TRANS Always 'inferior' to ST, 'loss' of meaning If ST deviates, deviation must be replicated More complex, detailed, concentrated For serious literature COMMUNICATIVE TR May be 'better' than the ST, 'gain' of force and clarity Loyalty to TL norms Smoother, simpler, more direct, conventional Non-literary writing

J. Munday, Introducing Translation Studies (2008) Chap. 3, Par. 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3.