Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TRS Group 4 Translatibility-Effibility
TRS Group 4 Translatibility-Effibility
TRS Group 4 Translatibility-Effibility
Definition of Translation:-
Definition of Translatability:-
Translatability would be defined as, “the capacity for some kind of meaning to be transferred
from one language to another without undergoing radical change.” It would also be defined as,
“a relative notion and has to do with the extent to which, despite obvious differences in linguistic
structure (grammar, vocabulary, etc), meaning can still be adequately expressed across
languages.”
Affability:-
Affability, according to which a natural languages can express anything that can be thought. A
physical--and, consequently, able to express all our sensations, perceptions, abstractions up to the
question of why is there something instead of Nothing. It is true that no purely verbal language
ever entirely achieves total affability: think of having to describe, in words alone, the smell of
rosemary. We are always required to supplement language with expressive gestures, and so-
called features. Nevertheless, of all semiotic systems, nothing rivals language in its affability.
This is why almost all projects for a perfect language start with natural, verbal languages as their
model.”
“According to [Jerrold Katz], for every thinkable thought there is, in every language, a sentence
one of whose senses uniquely corresponds to that thought; if that sentence is used literally and in
that sense, then, whatever the context, it expresses that thought. According to this view, every
Expressiability:-
The ability to express the thoughts of one language into another language. It also means that the
sense of original text can be expressed into translate work.
Translatability of texts,
giving special attention to the theories generated in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
The issue of the translatability of texts started to be considered as such in the nineteenth century,
when the birth of a linguistic science encouraged the positing of theoretical questions of this
nature. Until then, scholars had focused their attention mainly on translation methodology and
the principles of translation. The development of theories on the nature of language and
elaborating concepts in a language different from that in which they were conceived.
Translation Approaches:-
There are different school of thoughts that one says that There are essentially two points of view
2;- we cannot translate the text into its original form because there are difference on linguistical
levels.
Supportive views:-
The language is all kinds of different tools and the shell of thinking, but reality is the basis of
thinking, thinking is unified, the regularity of thinking is the same, no matter how different the
languages used by people are, they always reflect the actual life, that is, different languages can
reflect the same reality. Therefore, people use a kind of language to express the content, also can
use another language to express it, this is just the basis of translatability.
Translatability when it the ideological content for the premise, some form of the individual factor
when translation as can a matter, inclusive, of course, is the most ideal, but also to have to
sacrifice, or you will make wrong with formalism. This fact does not affect the sacrifice of the
original thoughts and artistry, for translation and not simply and machinery to copy the
individual elements within the sum, but will it as an artistic whole to introduce.
2. “Translation is one of the most necessary tasks of any literature” (in Schulte & Biguenet,
1992: 56). According to his hypothesis, the structural differences which exist between langilages
are no obstacle for translation. The reason that von Humboldt proposes to explain this is that
each linguistic community extra linguistic area, even those which go beyond its own social and
cultural experience.has a potential of expression which can generate resources for verbalising
every
3:- In a series of reading workshops which started at Harvard in the late 1920's, I. A. Richards
laid the foundations for his theory of translating, based on his belief that there is a "proper" way
1:- All translation seems to me simply an attempt to solve an impossible task. Every translator is
doomed to be done in by one of two stumbling blocks: he will either stay too close to the
original, at the cost of taste and the language of his nation, or he will adhere too closely to the
characteristics peculiar to his nation, at the cost of the original. The medium between the two is
a. That there will be terms which are specific to each linguistic community.
b. That there will be concepts which are common to two or more linguistic communities and
nevertheless have different connotations in each of them.
c. That each linguistic community structures reality in a different way, according to its own
linguistic codes.
All these factors have to be borne in mind when approaching the translation of any text. They
can give rise to translatability problems, but the fact that they apply to very specific items which
can be distinctly outlined implies that they cannot support a hypothesis of total untranslatability.
That is, the impossibility of translating a text does not follow from the recognition of these
circumstances.
3:- The transfer can never be total, but what reaches this region is that element in a translation
which goes beyond transmittal of subject matter. This nucleus is best defined as the element that
does not lend itself to translation. Even when all the surface content has been extracted and
transmitted, the primary concern of the genuine translator remains elusive. Unlike the words of
the original, it is not translatable, because the relationship between content and language is quite
different in the original and the translation. (ibid.: 76)
Yes, well-balanced rhyme, but literal translation into: "When a child leaves his mother, he is like
a melon tron
off the vine.” although the content and image transmits, but lost the original form of the kind of
close the There are are some certain obstructions during translatability such as:-
1 :- The translatability of the poem Poetry is a form of literary works, and some people think that
is the highest form of literary works. Have a translator that poetry is cannot of translation, and
oo hard-:core, does not conform to reality. The countries of the poetry while the use of the
language is different, but the poet's inspiration is interlinked, and not by the borders of the
restrictions. As long as the original poem to the ideas, feelings, and artistic conception, a deep
feeling of lasting appeal, cause the resonance of the heart, and at the same time, for their own
language and rhythm and can be well master, use it freely, so the foreign poetry in keep original
under the premise of the flavor of the translation (or the Chinese poetry translation in the past)
and not impossible. Of course, the translation poetry should the content and the form of the
united. In the two languages in reflect the same artistic conception, the poem to everything from
one language implanted into another language, to perfect the original poem to convey to the
readers, it is not easy to do. Obviously, the number of words in Chinese poetry limits, and
restrictions, dual, and so on, is certainly not translated into English. In translation, never use
word for word translation methods of death, and should be to use their own language and rhythm
of the United States, the original poems of the ideas, feelings, and artistic conception and lasting
appeal, etc to show it. Mr. Lu xun is also said "more creation". So Mr. Blunt is breathtaking said:
"poetry translation is not equal to the original poem to be one hundred percent, cannot leave to
create tracks." He thinks. there poetry translation is not the translatability of the question, but
Although language is the special idioms material, but it is the part of the national language, is
fixed, express a certain significance of language ingredient, so it in the original of the function
and the general language materials no different, is also has the translatability of. Because most
idioms most clearly reflected a national characteristics and all kinds of rhetoric, when translation
for a language that the peculiar idiom for another kind of language does not have different
expression means and butyl t "caused by the form is very difficult, of which there are individual
elements can't or difficult to do with another kind of language communication. Such as Chinese
proverb: “boy left niang, the guar leave seedlings", and created a.phase
balancing and YunJiao. Even so, we still can't jump rashly to the idiom is the untranslatability
conclusion. Some idioms isolated processing is difficult to translate, but if the individual
components as other components, and the whole related things, if put these idioms and the
content of the original look up, we can still in context with the second set vocabulary and
Style of the translatability problem is China's translation between a long argument and not solve
the problem. In recent years the famous translators to this problem opinions are divided over,
ZhouXuLiang untranslatability. This problem has not been resolved. Gold is sir and Nida
(Eugene Nida) collaborative "On Translation" (On Translation) to the view YuWenKe
Translation of point of view. The fifth part of the book emphasizes corresponding style (Stylistic
Equivalence) importance. even said in highly creative literary works, the characteristics of the
style of the translation is often to accept plays a decisive role. In this respect, even than the
content of the style of factors of the gender is more important." faithful (P98) but, on the other
hand, the book and emphasize the style must adapt to the reader's absorption ability (Channel
capacity of receptor), even said, the same article, for different types of audience, can take
different forms of translation. The author thinks that, the author's argument is contradictory. The
style of what to what shall prevail. The original style? Or readers to style. The theory fails to
Conclusion:-
To sum up, the consensus now seems to be that absolute untranslatability, whether linguistic or
cultural, does not exist. The notion of untranslatability has been unpopular in the twentieth
century mainly due to ideological reasons. With the expansion in the concept of translation in the
twentieth century, the debate on translatability versus untranslatability loses part of its validity,
since the various strategies that translators can resort to when confronted with a gap between two
languages or two cultures are acknowledged as sound translation mechanisms. At the same time,
it is assumed that the perfect translation, i.e. one which does not entail any losses from the
original is unattainable, especially when dealing with literary translation. A practical approach to
translation must accept that, since not everything that appears in the source text can be
reproduced in the target text, an evaluation of potential losses has to be carried out. To quote
[...] is not a principle that could possibly survive in translation. Priorities must be set." (Snell-