A Linguistic Theory of Translation (Language and Language Learning) [J.C. Catford] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Front Cover. J. C. Catford. Oxford University Press, – Linguistics – pages. Get this from a library! A linguistic theory of translation, by j.c. catford.. [J c Catford].
|Published (Last):||7 September 2008|
|PDF File Size:||18.9 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.25 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In other lf, we also use the term exponent in talking of the relationship between the abstract units and items of grammar and lexis and their realizations in medium form.
Thus we may state that an item or class of one language is the formal equivalent of an item or class in another, because the category in question operates in approximately the same way in the structure of higher rank units in both languages; but this in turn, implies that we have established a correspondence between these higher rank units, and this may have to be done on the basis of highest probability textual equivalence.
Language, as we said above, is patterned behaviour. This is the unit of stress or rhythm.
Full text of “A Linguistic Theory Of Translation Oxford Univ. Press ( )”
The translation equivalence is set up between varieties specifically Cockney and Parigot: The ambiguity itself a feature of the English language —the SL is a functionally relevant feature of the situation. He has a broken leg. The same is true of contextual meanings. There is also replacement of SL graphology by TL graphology — but the TL graphological form is by no means a translation equivalent of the SL graphological form.
There may be texts in which bath or bathhouse would be an adequate translation equivalent.
But sequence is relevant in English and we therefore count it as a feature of the structure, and say that, in this respect, too, structure-shift occurs in the translation. In particular, however, I should like to thank Dr M. Kurt rated it it was amazing Apr 21, It is this autonomy of phonology which makes it possible for two or more lexical or grammatical items to share the j.c.xatford phonological exponents — e. Thus, in English, clauses normally operate as exponents od elements of sentence-structure.
Styles vary along a scale which may be roughly characterized as formal. Having established such a highly abstract translstion, we may use this as a frame of reference for stating approximate correspondence at lower abstractional levels; e.
Both phonological and graphological translation must be in- cluded in a general theory of translationn because they help to throw light on the conditions of translation equivalence, and hence on the more complex process of total translation. In What you say is wrong, what you say is a rank-shifted clause of structure CSP operating as exponent of H in the Ngp. Both respect and affection may be present in the situation, but respect may not be a stylistically relevant feature for the Tjeory son, while it is rele- vant for the Asian son.
Here it may seem as if an English tone a phonological item has a Finnish grammatical item as its trans- lation equivalent. This does not, however, in any way affect the principle under discussion.
Linguistic Theory of Translation : J.C. Catford :
Hot ir gestolen a pferd? This is virtually untranslatable into English because a comparable shared ex- ponence does not occur — Lower may occur as a place-name element, but it is not normally used by itself as an abbreviation.
At one or more levels of language there may be simple replacement, by non- equivalent TL material: This distinction relates to the levels of language involved in translation. As we have said above, there is another interlevel: It is clear that the items listed above can be grouped in such a way.
The book is a valuable addition to the literature of a subject which has only recently begun to receive the scientific treatment it deserves. A decision, in any particular case, as to what is functionally relevant in this sense must in our present state of knowledge remain to some extent a matter of opinion. Two lexical items in it call for comment. Whether or not we regard the resultant simultaneous reference to situa- tional features of the contextual meanings of both these items as functionally relevant or not may be a matter of opinion.
There is com- munity of substance between SL and TL; but the substance is situation-snhs. Rizqa Ridina rated it liked it Nov 06, Since every language is ultimately sui generis — its categories being defined in terms of relations holding within the language itself— it is clear that formal correspondence is nearly always approxi- mate.
Using the set of English colour terms, Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Purple, we can set up an approximate translation-equivalence diagram as follows: These absolute limitations derive directly from our theory of translation equivalence. We might define collocational untranslatability thus: Change an element in the situation and observe what textual change occurs; change an item in a text and observe what situational changes occur.
A Linguistic Theory of Translation
It is, on the contrary, a form of transcription see Search the history of over billion web pages on the Internet. We have already pointed out 7. Here the actual situational features relatable to WE are the speaker S and at least one other O ; the addressee A is excluded.
In theory, this could be done without any appeal at all to the contextual meanings of the texts — and hence without any reference to cultural differences. The primary ele- ments of word-structure are B base and A affix. Very often, these alternants, the terms in a system, are the members of a class: The reason for these equivalences is that, except in certain definable circumstances, the Japanese mora always has the structure CV; an English C before C, or finally, is thus normally represented by a Japanese CV structure.
A Process-Oriented Shift Analysis. Transltion all 5 questions about A Linguistic Theory of Translation…. If the TL has no formally corresponding feature, the text, or the item, is relatively untranslatable. Another — negative — illustration of this is provided by an Anglo-Yiddish joke, from which this is a relevant extract.