1. INTERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATION - PART I AND II BY FLORENTINA BATISTA I.D. 9-70-90 UNIVERSIDA LATINA DE PANAMA

2. HOW THE TRANSLATION FALL INTO THE FIELD OF STUDIES  ACCORDING TO JAKOBSON, TRANSLATION FROM ONE SYSTEM OF SIGNS, SUCH AS VERBAL SYSTEM INTO ANOTHER SYSTEM OF SIGNS, AS NON VERBAL SYSTEM DEFENITLY FALLS INTO THE FIELD OF TRANSLATION STUDIES.

3.  JAKOBSON, FOR SOME REASON, DRAGGED INTO CLASSIC ESSAY ON THE LINGUISTIC ASPECTS OF TRASLATION, PROBABLY THE MOST QUOTED TRADUCTOLOGICAL ESSAY EVER, IT WOULD BE BETTER, FOR THIS REASON TO CONSIDER IT AN ACTIVITY THAT ENABLES US TO REDESIGN THE TRANSLATION PROCESS FROM NEW (THEREFORE, VERY INTERSTING) POINT OF VIEW. WHY THE INTERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATION IS CONSIDERED AS A CLASSY ESSAY INSTEAD OF A BORDERLINE

4. SEGRE SUGGESTION FOR REDESING A TRANSLATION  TO REDESIGN A TRANSLATION NEED TO EXPAND CONCEPT OF TEXT. DEVELOPING A METAPHOR IN WHICH THE WORDS FORMING A WORK. THIS METAPHOR ANTICIPATE THE OBSERVATION ABOUT THE COHESION OF THE TEXT, HINTS, IN PARTICULAR, AT THE CONTENT OF THE TEXT, WHAT IS WRITTEN WITHIN WORK.  IF WE INTERPRET THIS IN ITS BROADEST SENSE, WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT SEGRE IS REFERRING TO “WORDS” AND “WRITTEN”, WE CAN TRANSFER THE CONCEPT OF TEXT TO ANY WORK, EVEN MUSICAL, PICTORIAL, FILMC WORKS.  STEINER ALSO AGREES WITH THOSE WHO INVOLVE INTERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATION IN THE BROADER SCINCE OF TRANSLATION.

5.  NOW WE WILL TRY TO PROVE THAT IT IS USEFUL, FROM THE METHODOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW, TO INCLUDE INTERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATION IN THE SERCH FOR A GENERIC DESCRIPTION OF THE TRANSLATION PROCESS.  FIRST, THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VERBAL LANGUAGES – THAT ARE DISCRET, AND ICONIC LANGUAGES; SUCH AS A PAINTING AND FIGURATIVE ARTS IN GENERAL THAT ARE CONTINUOUS. THAT MEAN, THAT IN DISCRETE LANGUAGES WE CAN TELL ONE SIGN FROM ANOTHER, WHEREAS, IN CONTINUOUS LANAGUAGE THE TEXT IS NOT DIVISIBLE INTO DISCRETE SIGNS. PROVE USEFUL OF TRANSLATION

6. EXPLANATION OF LOTMAN LOTMAN EXPLAINED THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE AN EXACT TRANSLATION OF TEXTS FROM DISCRET LANGUAGE INTO NON-DISCRET AND VICE VERSA, IT DEPENDS ON THEIR PRINCIPALLY DIFFERENT NATURE. DISCRET LINGUSITIC SYSTEMS, TEXT IS SECONDARY IN REALTION TO SIGN, CAN BE DIVIDED DISTINCTLY INTO SIGNS. HOWEVER, CONTINUOUS LANGUAGE TEXT CAN`T BE DIVIDED INTO SIGNS, BUT IT IS SELF A SIGN. THEREFORE, ANY KIND OF COMMUNICATIVE ACT, INCLUDING ANY KIND OF TRANSLATION PROCESS, IS NEVER COMPLETE, WE ALWAY HAVE A LOSS.

7. INTERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATION IN GENERAL  IN INTERSEMIOTIC TRASLATION, LIKE IN ANY KIND OF TRANSLATION IN GNENERAL, INSTEAD OF PRETEND THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO TRANSLETE/COMMUNICATE EVERYTHING, AGAISNT THE EVIDENCE, IT IS ADVISABLE TO TAKE THE LOSS INTO ACCOAUNT FROM THE START.  CLUVER SAY THAT A TRANSLATED TEXT IS INEVITABLE NOT EQUIVALENT TO THE PROTOTEXT, AND AT THE SAME TIME, IT CONTAINS SOMETHING MORE OR SOMETHING LESS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROTOTEXT. IN SUBTANCE, WHAT HE SAYS CAN BE LINKED TO WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY SAID ABOUT THE DOMINANT OF THE TEXT. BEFORE APPROACHING A TEXT, THE TRANLATOR MUST MAKE A SERIRES OF DECISIONS AIMED AT PINPOINTING THE DOMINANT OF THE TEXT.

8.  WHEN WE TRANSLATE ONE TEXT INTO ANOTHER, THE SERIES OF DECISIONS MADE MAY NOT BE COMPLETELY APPARENT TO THE READER OF THE TRANSLATION IF; FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS NOT A TRANSLATOR´S AFTERWORD OF ANOTHER SORT OF METATEXT EXPLANING THE REASON OF HER CHOICES.  IF WE DO NOT ANALIZE THOROUGHLY ITS DIFFERENCES, WHAT WAS LOST IN THE PASSGE FROM THE ORIGINAL MAY ESCAPE OUR NOTICE, DENOTATIVE, CONNOTAVIE ASPECTS, IMAGES, SOUND, RHYTHMS, SYNTACTIC STRUCTERED, LEXICAL, COHERENCE, INTRATEXTUAL REFERENCE; SOME OF THESE COMPONENT MAY NOT BE FOUND IN THE TRASLATED TEXT. WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO TRANSLATE A TEXT INTO ANOTHER

9.  CONVERSELY, WHEN ONE OF THE TWO TEXT IN AN INTERTEXTUAL TRANSLATION IS NOT VERBAL, THE CHOICE MUST BE SACRIFICED IS FAR MORE APPARENT. INDEED, THE INTERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATOR, WILLING OR NOT, IS FORCED TO DIVIDED THE ORIGINAL TEXT INTO PARTS, IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW: DENOTATION/CONNOTATION, EXPRESSION/CONTENT, DIALOGUES/DESCRIPTIONS, INTERTEXTUAL/INTRATEXTUAL.  THEN HE/SHE MUST DESASSEMBLE THE PROTOTEXT INTO THESE PARTS, FIND A TRANSLATING ELEMENT FOR EACH OF THEM.

10.  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FILM AND LITERARY WORK LIES IN THE FACT THAT LITERATURE IS FIXED IN A WRITTEN FORM, WHILE IN A FILM THE IMAGE, IS SUPPORTED BY THE SOUND IN FORM OF THE MUSIC.  WE HAVE SAID THAT INTERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATION IMPLIES A SORT OF SUBDIVISION OF THE ORIGINAL INTO VARIOUS ELEMENTS AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF COMPONENTS ABLE TO TRANSLATE SAID ELEMENTS WITHIN THE COHERENCE OF THE TRANSLATED TEXT. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FILM AND LITERARY WORK

11.  A FILM COMPOSITION CAN BE DIVIDED INTO DIFFERENT ELEMENTS, SUCH AS: DIALOGUE BETWEEN CHARACTERS, THE PHISICAL SETTING, POSSIBLE VOICEOVERS, THE MUSICAL SCORE, THE EDITTING, THE FRAMING, LIGHTING, COLORATION, CLOSE- UP OR NOT, PERSPECTIVE, THE COMPOSITION OF THE FRAME AND, IN CASE OF HUMAN VOICE, AND INTONATION

12.  WE HAVE SAID THAT INERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATION IMPLIES A SORT OF SUBDIVISION OF THE ORIGINAL INTO VARIOUS ELEMENTS, AND IDENTIFICATION OF COMPONENETS ABLE TO TRANSLATE SAID ELEMENTS WITHIN THE COHERENCE OF THE TRANSLATED TEX. THE SAME IS EQUALLY VALID FOR TEXTUAL AND INTERTEXTUAL TRANSLATION.

13.  THE LAST ASPECTS OF INTERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IS THAT OF TRANSLATABILITY. SINCE THE ORIGINAL TEXT, OR METATEXT, ARE NOT EASILY COMPARABLE IN TERMS OF SPECIFIC CRITERIA, THE CONCEPTS OF “TRANSLATABILITY AND “ACCURACY” CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED IN CONVENTIONAL TERMS.