Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

storia della traduzione - Coggle Diagram

- - - - keeping teh same ideas, formes. figures of thought, but with a language which conforms to usage
        
        same problem of AUGENE NIDA (translator of the bible), dynimic equivalence
        
        peter Newmark, communicative equivalence
        
        Translation scholar Peter Newmark (1916–2011) tackled the notion of equivalence by asking if a translation should try to remain as close as possible to the source language or if it should, instead, aim to be free and idiomatic. He called these two approaches semantic translation and communicative translation respectively.
      - the effect on the receptors should be the same that the same text had on its original readers.
  - - - he rendered sense for sense, describes what cicero did
        
        he substituted the greek idioms and peculiarities, words that you can’t just translate; you have to understand the meaning and then try to substitute these peculiarities in your own language from the original language
        
        a literal translation can be unfaithful, he refers to parapharasing, and to preserving the substance
  - - - It’s a question of strength, when we translate we lose strength, because we don’t have the right words, that happens a lot in the scientific field, which is changing so fast, we have a lack of thoughts and words.
      - "translators did not have the words in Latin for translating specific works, because they were not first composed in the Latin tongue"
        
        It’s the same problem as today, we write in English, we read in English, we translate into English, but sometimes there’s something that remains from our culture, language, the residuo traduttivo (translation loss)
      - that “although the translator ought to be perfectly acquainted with the subject which he wishes to translate”. And that’s another problematic thing: to be always aware of the subject of our translations.
  - - - He’s saying that all the other scholars are donkeys because they stick to Latin. He has his target readership clear in mind and he wants to be as broad as possible, so there we must find a language, in the street in the home, in the marketplace.
        
        when we read, we translate from prestigious language we are influenced from that language. There’s a sort of attrition so that we tend to emulate the structure of the sentence in the original language. We are always influenced a lot by the source language.
        
        link to TOURY
        
        the letters of the Latin alphabet make it pretty hard to speak good german
        
        "now it's easy as pie to read"
        
        allein (solum) : problem of translation. he wanted to speak german, not latinn or greek, so that word had sense there (see slides)
  - - - we think we know Italian and English and we probably do, of course we do, but that’s not the same as to translate from one language into another language. You might well understand both but you cannot be able to translate
      - So many persons appreciate painting who cannot themselves paint
      - vices of a translator:
        
        understand badly
        
        beauty of the original is rendered clumsy, confused and ugly
        
        threatens the majesty of his original author
  - - - there is no language so rich and varied as to correspond completely to the figures and idioms even of the poorest language
  - - - "whereas you will no longer be anything at all "
        
        He translated a dialogue attributed to Plato in which he denies the immortality of the soul, in particular he added three words (“rien du tout”). So he was accused of being atheist only because he added these three words.
        
        (lesson: watch out because it’s not fair to add something that it wasn’t in the original text)
        
        the translator must have perfect knowledge of the language of the author he is translating + excellence in the languages
        
        the translator must understand perfectly the sense and matter of the author he is translating, and we have already seen how other authors emphasise this aspect of linguistic competence
        
        the translator must not be servile to the point of rendering word for word.
        
        be content with the common word -you should avoid adopting words too close to Latin, so again this attention to interference between languages, and little use in the past, but be content with the common tongue without introducing any new terms foolishly or out of reprehensible curiousness.
        
        a joining and arranging of terms with such sweetness that not alone the soul is pleased, but also the ear is delighted and never hurt by such harmony of language. So importance of being sweet, of trying to keep that original musicality, rhythm, that particular characters that originals tend to have but not translations.
  - - - "is like looking at flemish tapestries on the wrong side"
        
        He thought that you can’t reach the same smoothness, the same qualities of the original, so translation is always a loss.
  - - - usefulness of being able to read a text into you own language and the role of the translator in that but also the awareness of the inevitable faults
    - - having transported it from France to England; put it in English clothes; taught it to talke our tongue (though many-times with a jerke of the French Iargon) would set it forth to the best service I might;
  - - - He identifies three types of translation
        
        The metaphrase, or turning an author word by word, and line by line, from one language into another.
        
        paraphrase, or translation with latitude, where the author is kept in view by the translator, but his words are not so strictly followed as his sense; and that too is admitted to be amplified, but not altered
        
        Imitation, where the translator assumes the liberty, not only to vary from the words and sense, but to forsake them both as he sees occasion; and taking only some general hints from the original, to run division on the groundwork, as he pleases. He condemns this type of translation because says that imitation of an author is the most advantageous way for a translator to show himself, but the greatest wrong which can be done to the memory and reputation of the dead.
  - - - • Appropriation
        
        • Parody
        
        • “perfect identity with the original, so that one does not exist instead of the other, but in the place of the other”
    - - we must get to know the particular characteristic of nations to understand them, to be able to have dealings with them. For these idiosyncrasies are like language and currency: they not only facilitate dealing among nations, they make them possible. So there is a link between translation and currency, so money and culture.
    - - On Carlyle’s German Romance (1828)
  - - - so two people to connect together, source-language author and target-language reader, and the attempt from the translator part to keep the author in the sphere of the target language so that the reader can understand and enjoy his text. What strategies are opened to the true translator?
        
        1- in the first case, the author is compared to a translator, how he would translate if he knew German. In the first case is the reader who goes towards the author
        
        . According to Schleiermacher is not the author who goes towards the reader, but is the reader that has to make an effort to go towards the author. This is usually called a forenizing approach because the reader reads the text as written by the foreigner, he has to make an effort, and the final aim is to incorporate everything linguistically into the German language, in this case.
        
        2- in the second case how he would write if he was from Germany. in the second approach is the author who goes towards the reader. he dismisses this approach
        
        this is the domesticating approach. So Schleiermacher quoted domesticating approach wasn’t available, wasn’t the one that we must choose because we must read a text being aware that it’s a foreign text and again making that effort in order to subsume the author into our culture.
      - he insists that these are the only two options and that all commonly described dichotomies (free and faithful, by letter and by sense) are subsumed in this difference.
- - - - • Language teaching and ELT;
      - • ESP (the one we’re most interested in), English for special purposes. That is what we are interested in because specialist translation belongs to the area English for specific purposes.
    - - MONOLINGUAL
        
        we can put together all the Italian translations of the same text
      - MULTILINGUAL
        
        we could choose an original and all its translations in several languages, and that’s multilingual corpus
      - PARALLEL
        
        with parallel texts you have the same texts, for example in translation you have texts in the same language, deriving from the same original, so they’re all translating the same original, so they’re very similar but written by different people. So they are parallel, but not the same texts.
        
        translations of the same original.
      - NON-PARALLEL
      - COMPARABLE
        
        kind of texts, they are not coming from the same original, but they can be compared because they are of the same subjects
      - NON-COMPARABLE