The present paper " Formal and Dynamic Equivalence and the Principle of Equivalent Effect" deals with the investigation of translation theory and equivalence. It illuminates important questions of translation raised by different translation theorists. Our term paper consists of Introduction, three main chapters, Conclusion and a list of used publications.
Introduction illustrates the purpose of the choice of the subject- matter for our research. It gives a brief outline of the paper and represents the most relevant themes discussed within the scopes of the following chapters.
In Chapter One" Translation as a Subject Area " we define the term translation, its goals and difficulties, we dwell upon translation in general and illuminate the problem of equivalence, which can be said to be the central issue in translation, consequently many different theories of the concept of equivalence that have been elaborated within this field. We roll out the character of the translation theories, five components of a good translation suggested by Ronowicz. They are assumptions or axioms, methodology, language, descriptions and explanations. We also acknowledge the importance of translation as a unique bridge between two different languages and cultures. We touch upon some translation techniques and methods, define what good translation is and how to achieve such a translation carrying on naturalness and fidality to the SLT. In Chapter Two "The Problem of Formal and Dynamic Equivalence" we dwell upon different translation theorists who proposed different translation techniques, mostly E. Nida's theory of formal and dynamic (functional) equivalence. Formal equivalence being described as word for word translation that is source oriented translation and dynamic equivalence as sense for sense. L.G. Kelly describes the source oriented type as an approach that depends on one-to-one matching of small segments, on the assumption that the centre of gravity of text and translation lies in the significance for terminological and artistic reasons. Munday points out the definition of the ' gloss translation', with scholarly footnotes which are the most typical of formal equivalence. As to dynamic or functional translation it is worth to mention Leonard Forster’s definition of a good translation as ‘one which fulfills the same purpose in the new language as the original did in the language in which it was written’. Souter argues that ‘our ideal in translation is to produce on the minds of our readers as nearly as possible the same effect as was produced by the original on its readers’… Thus we face up to the conception of ‘similar response’ in the TL text and target reader. In order to achieve the equivalent effect discussed in the Chapter Three, one must produce the closest to the ST equivalent from the point of view of both form and meaning. As Leonard Forster argues all translating must be concerned with the response of the receptor. In this case the translator must do his best and use all the particularities of the TL in order to achieve meaningful and if it is necessary emotionally colored work. The last but not the least is presented the Conclusion based on the analyses of the subject given. We here examine obvious differences between formal and functional equivalences and illustrate them due to examples of proverb and saying’s translations. At the end we represent References that is the list of the books and Internet sources used in the process of our research.
General Understanding of Translation
The word translation derives from the Latin translatio (which itself comes from trans- and fero, the supine form of which is latum, together meaning "to carry across" or "to bring across"). The modern Romance languages use words for translation derived from that source or from the alternative Latin traduco ("to lead across"). The Ancient Greek term for translation, μετάφρασις (metaphrasis,...
References: 1. Bell, R. T. (1991). Translation and translating: theory and practice. London & New York: Longman.
2. Catford, J. C.. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press, 1965. p.21
4. Étienne Dolet 'La Manière de Bien Traduire d’une Langue en Aultre ' . 1540
6. Hatim, B. & Munday, J. (2004). Translation, an Advanced Resource Book. Canada & United State of America: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
7. Jakobson, Roman (1959/2004) 'On Linguistic Aspects of Translation ', in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) (2004), The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd edition, pp. 138–43.
8. Jakobson, Roman (1959) 'On Linguistic Aspects of Translation ', in R. A. Brower (ed.) On Translation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 232-39.
13. Liu Zhongde. Ten Lectures on Literary Translation. Beijing: China Translation & Publishing Corporation, 1991, p. 7.
14. Munday. Jeremy (2001). Introducing Translation Studies, Theories and applications. London and New York: Routledge, p. 36, 38, 41, 42.
15. Newman F.W. 'On translating Homer ' . 1861, p. 14 .
16. Newmark, P. (1988). Approaches to Translation. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.
17. Nida, Eugene A. and Charles R. Taber. 'The Theory and Practice of Translation '. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982. p. 159, 201.
20. Ronowicz . Eddie. One Language, Different Cultures. 2006.
21. Savory, Th. The Art of Translation. - Lnd., 1957. p. 45.
22. Shuttleworth. Mark with Cowie. Moira Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester, St.Jerome Publishing, 1997.p 181.
23. Vinay, J. P. and Darbelnet, J. 1995.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document