1. Translation: key concepts

2. “A translator must recognise and decode the text as encoded by the writer before it encoded anew for the TL reader.”

3. Translator/encoder/text
SL author/encoder
text
Translator/receiver
Translator/encoder/text
TL reader / receiver

4. Jakobson’s categories
The concept of translation
Jakobson in ‘On Linguistic aspects of translation’
Intralinguistic
interlinguistic
intersemiotic

8. Word for word vs. ‘sense for sense’ or ‘literal’ vs. ‘free’
Cicero and. St. Jerome:
Word for word vs. ‘sense for sense’
or ‘literal’ vs. ‘free’
Dryden (1697):
Metaphrase
Paraphrase
Imitation
Tytler’s ‘principles of translation’ (1797):
Complete transcription of ideas;
‘Same’ style and ‘character as original’;
Translation should have all the ease of original
Schleiermacher’ ‘two paths’_
1. the translator leaves the writer alone and moves the reader towards the writer;
2. The translator leaves the reader alone and moves the writer towards the writer.
Alienating as opposed to naturalizing
Traditional Translation concepts

9. The concept of Equivalence and receptor- based theories
Jakobson: ‘Equivalence in difference’. The problem of meaning and equivalence focuses on the differences in structure and terminology rather than on inability to render a message written in another language.
Nida: ‘Formal’ equivalence’ focuses attention on the message itself. It is ST- oriented.
‘Dynamic equivalence’: the principle of ‘equivalent effect’ - the relation between TT receptor and text should be the same as between SR and ST. ‘Naturalness.’
Newmark:
‘Communicative translation’: strives to recreate the effect the ST had on SRs.
‘Semantic translation’ resembles Nida’s formal equivalence and places the emphasis on content and maintenance of ST form.
Baker: responsible for a taxonomy of equivalence: she recommends translators strive for equivalence at the level of word, phrase, grammar, text, and pragmatics.
The concept of Equivalence and receptor- based theories

10. A problem of equivalence