I am Baharuddin dot com

Formal equivalence:

Formal equivalence focuses on the need to pay attention to the form and content contained in the message. The so-called formal equivalence means that the message in the target language should be in accordance with the different parts in the original language.

Formal equivalence intends to achieve equivalence between original text and translation text, and to some extent reflect the linguistical features such as vocabulary, grammar, syntax and structure of the original language which has great impact on the accuracy and correctness. One of the most typical translation is “Gloss translations”, which is closest to the original structure, and with attached comments to give readers a better understanding of the culture and custom.

Dynamic Equivalence:

The most important thing in translating is the message received by the audience. Messages that are significant in both form and content need not only to be understood but also to be appreciated. And only when the translator could state the original features, he can achieve “dynamic equivalence”, which stressed the importance of transferring meaning, not grammatical form.

In a word, “quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the response of the receptor is essentially like that of the original receptors.”

Functional/techncal translation

Functionalist approaches to translation draw on action theory (cf. Nord 1996). Action can be defined as an intentional change or transition from one state of affairs to another (cf. von Wright 1963:28). If there are two or more agents involved in an action, we may speak of an interaction. An interaction is referred to as communicative when it is carried out through signs produced intentionally by one agent, referred to as the ’sender’, directed towards another agent, referred to as the ‘addressee‘ or ‘receiver’, and intended to change the state of mind of the latter.

Communicative interactions take place in situations that are limited in time and space. This means every situation has historical and cultural dimensions that condition the agents’ verbal and nonverbal behaviour, their knowledge and expectations of each other, their appraisal of the situation, and the standpoint from which they look at the world.

Translators enable communication to take place between members of different culture communities. They bridge the gap between situations where differences in verbal and nonverbal behaviour, expectations, knowledge and perspectives are such that there is not enough common ground for the sender and receiver to communicate effectively by themselves.

The translator’s mediatory role does not always involve translating in any literal way. In fact, translators quite regularly do much more than translate texts, they sometimes even advise their clients not to have a particular text translated at all but to use another kind of communication medium to achieve the purpose they are aiming at. To account for this difference, we distinguish between ‘translational action’ (the range of what translators actually do) and ‘translation’ (what they do when rendering texts). In this article, I will refer to ‘translation’ (in the narrower sense) only

Documentary Transaltion:

In the description of documentary translation, Nord (1991) purports that this type of translation “serves as a document of a source culture communication between the author and the source text” recipient (p. 72). Examples of such types of translations include word-for-word translations in official certificates or commercial contracts and foreignizing; Gile (2009, p. 251) defines foreignizing as a strategy in the practice of translation which is aimed at retaining information from source texts through contravening the principles of the source language in order to retain the original meaning intended by the author of the source text. Munday (2001) agrees with Nord by asserting that while documentary translation may be perceived as a “foreignizing” translation instrumental translation may be perceived as “domesticating” form of translation (p. 81). Documentary translations commonly act as texts which reveal the original type of communication between the creator and recipient of a source text (Nord, 1997); all literal forms of translation may thus be categorized under documentary translation. It is however noteworthy that at times documentary translation may occur in extreme forms whereby the translation mirrors the lexical, syntactic and morphological characteristics of s source language framework as encountered in the original text (Nord, 2005). Such types of documentary translation are referred to as interlinear translations. In her descriptions of documentary translation Nord (1997) asserts that a translator undertaking a documentary translation may choose to focus on any of the characteristics which typify the different source text ranks. Consequently, a translator may choose to “push others into the background” (Nord, 2005, p. 80).

Instrumental Translation:

According to Nord (2005) instrumental translation acts as an autonomous apparatus through which messages may be transmitted in a new process of communication in a target culture. The objective of instrumental translation is thus to communicate without making the recipient aware of having read or hear a different form of text that was previously used in a different communication context (Chesterman, 2000). Chesterman is useful in this sentence since he acknowledges it is fundamental for translators to always “specify” the kinds of translations that they have in mind as well as the goals they intend to achieve in their translation endeavors (p. 47). Examples of instrumental translation include function-changing or function-preserving translations. According to Chesterman (1997) “function preserving” translations are those which maintain the function of the source text despite breaking language norms (p. 142). Function changing translations, on the other hand, are those which are characterized by unintended transformations in function (Chesterman, 1997). It is noteworthy that instrumental translations are commonly created in autonomous forms from the original texts (Baker, 1992). Instrumental translations are thus formed in a manner which makes it almost impossible for the target audience to recognize them as original texts which have been re-written in a desired target language (Nord, 1997). Translators are thus tasked with the duty of adapting the text to the cultural values and norms as well as text genres and tenor which typify the target language or audience in order to ensure that readers are unaware of the fact that the text they are reading is actually a translation (Nord, 1997). According to Nord (2005) instrumental translation may be further segmented into three types; the first is that which is characterized by the target text fulfilling a similar function, or serving the same purpose as the source text. In such cases, the translation is referred to as “equifunctional translation”, for example that which typifies business communication (p. 81). A second type of instrumental translation is the heterofunctional type; this form of translation occurs when the purpose of a source text is not easily recognized by the receiver of the target text and the translator has to adapt it as long as they do not interfere with the aim of the sender and they are in tandem with the functions of the source text (Nord, 1997). The third of instrumental translation identified by Nord (2005) is “homologous translation” (p. 81). This form of translation, which is commonly used in the translation of poetic texts, is aimed at attaining similar impacts through the replication of the source text’s function in the literary circumstances of the target culture (Schjoldager, 2008). It is noteworthy that according to Nord (1997) the requirement for culture compatibility between the source and target texts implies that instrumental translation can only be deemed legitimate when the purpose of the sender or source author is not entirely aimed at source culture audience but may also be consumed members of a target culture. If this goal cannot be attained, then the translation must be ascertained to be fulfilling a documentary function (Gambier & Doorslaer, 2009).

Foreignization and Domestication

Lawrence Venuti is known to be the one who introduced the terms foreignization and domestication strategies into translation studies in 1995. Venuti (1995: 19-20) discusses invisibility hand in hand with two types of translating strategy: doemstication and foreignization. However, the terms actually have long been known before Venuti introduced them. Domestication has been known at least since ancient Rome, and foreignization at least was introduced at least since the Classical and Romantic periods of German culture (Venuti:1998:240). The terms of foreignization and domestication have been argued for years. The fact that the style and and sense of the original work are difficult to maintain as far as possible and to be understood and acceptable by the readers in the translation draws translators to consider these two strategies in their translation. Some people think foreignization may be a better choice compared to dmestication, but some other people think that domestication is more suitable to convey meaning. Domestication is more dominant in UK-US translation as translators concern more on the readers‘ response. From this point, translators should know the target text language‘s custom, cultural information and cultural difference so that translators will have the ability to convey the right message.

Foreignization

In 1970‘s, at the forum of contemporary international translation, Venuti was recognized as the representative of foreignization. He proposed the concept which gave the prominence to ―foreignness‖ of the source text, either in style or any other aspects contained in the source text language. In this type of translation, readers are urged to accept foreign culture concepts. Translators do not compromise with the readers. Venuti was not the first to introduce foreignization. The term foreignization strategy can be traced back to the German culture of the Classical and Romantic periods as it was proposed by Schleiermacher. Schleiermacher introduces foreignization because of the intended readership and because it can benefit the target text language. Schleiermacher prefers foreignization as he states that ‗the translator leaves the writer alone, as much as possible and moves the reader towards the writer‘ (in Munday, 2008:147) When foreignization is used, culture specific items which contain cultural information of the source text language will be preserved, and the readers will feel the atmosphere and sense of the source text language culture in a greater degree. However, it should be understood that foreignization is not simple translation from word to word, forignization only retains particular source text language which convey semantically structure concept and they are mostly concerns about culture specific items. In case of translator visibility, Venuti strongly prefers the foreignizing strategy as it makes the translators ‗visible‘ to the readers, and this will lead to the recognizion of the translators. Upon reading, readers will find some foreign concepts which are retained in the target text. This eventually makes the target text readers aware of the foreign source text elements which are preseved. Target text readers will be aware of the exictence of the source text in another language, and, eventually, realize the exictence of the translator. Venuti recommends foreignization as he argues that it is unfair to use domestication. Venuti (1995:20) states that domestication involves ‗an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to the target-language cultural values‘. In domestication, foreign cultural values are excluded or adapted to fit into the domestic value system of the target text language. Foreignization translation is also slowly accepted by the readers. The foreignization in translation is seen to play a more vital role as it deepens communication between various countries. Target text readers will have the chance to know the culture of the source text language and the target text language will be able to enrich itself. As we all know, language is not a sealed system; consequently, a good foreignization in translation is surely advantageous to enrich the target text language. Foreignization will give the opportunity for the target text language to absorb some new language elements of the source text language. Once certain vocabularies or culture specific items are accepted by the society, they will gradually be regarded as new members of the target text languages.

Domestication

Domestication is a translation strategy of using a transparent, fluent, ‗invisible‘ style in order to minimize foreignness of the target text (Munday, 2008: 144) Domestication has long been implemented since Ancient Rome. This strategy is usually not only concern about cultural conflict, but it also concerns with political. Certain culture may use this strategy because of its imperialistic tendencies as in the translation done by the contemporary Anglo-American culture. Domestication may be seen benefit the target text readers; however, it presents a problem regarding transfer of meaning. According to Venuti (1995: 469), domestication involves ‗an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to AngloAmerican cultural values.‘ In domestication, foreign culture-specific items are excluded, they are replaced by domestic culture-specific items to fit into the domestic value system. Another consequence of domestication is that it makes the translator invisible because the target text readers will read the translation like an original text. Domestication emphasizes more on easy understanding. Target text readers will not find difficulties in dealing with the cultural difference between the original text and the translation. The main characteristic of domestication is on its smooth and pure target text language to translate the source text language. Upon doing this, the smooth translation will cover the difference possed by the two different cultures. Target text readers will easily accept the translation without any difficulties. In domestication, the source text‘s culture and language style are replaced by the target text cultures and languages. Idioms, phrases, figurative languages, cultural specific items will be understood easily

Text added in the above textarea is not automatically saved

You need to copy it and paste it to a separate text pad and save it.

Steps in Translation

Text in Translation

Translation Procedures

Shifting in Translation

V-Flat Translation Theory

Two-Pole Theory (F&D)