Su búsqueda retornó 5 resultados.

Resumen: Generally speaking, the message of a poem is conveyed on three levels: the semantic, the syntactic, and the phonological. How translatable each of these levels is to the translator depends on how much cognation there is between source and target language: the more cognation there is, the more translatable each of these levels. Thus, in respect of all three levels, translation between languages of the same family, such as English and French, both of which belong to the Indo-European family, is easier than translation between languages of different families, such as English and Chinese, which belong respectively to the Indo-European and the Sino-Tibetan family. If a further distinction is to be made, one may say that, in translation between Chinese and European languages, the semantic level is less challenging than both the syntactic and the phonological level, since syntactic and phonological features are language-bound, and do not lend themselves readily to translation, whereas language pairs generally have corresponding words and phrases on the semantic level to express similar ideas or to describe similar objects, events, perceptions, and feelings. As an image owes its existence largely to its semantic content, the imagery of a poem is easier to translate than its phonological features. Be that as it may, there is yet another difference: the difference between the imagery of non-dramatic poetry and the imagery of poetic drama when it comes to translation. With reference to Hamlet and its versions in Chinese and in European languages, this paper discusses this difference and the challenges which the translator has to face when translating the imagery of poetic drama from one language into another; it also shows how translating Shakespeare's imagery from English into Chinese is more formidable than translating it from English into other European languages.

Resumen: If one is to draw up, in order of usage frequency, a list of words whose authority has most often been invoked in translation studies during the past decades, idomestication/i and iforeignizing/i will most likely appear at the top. When they were first coined or given their new isignifia/i, these words may well have been applicable to the approaches or strategies used by certain translators in certain periods, certain cultures, or certain parts of the world. One should not, however, be misled into thinking that they are applicable to all translators or all translations, for, apart from the "domesticating" and "foreignizing" approaches or strategies, there is a wide range of other possibilities into which the vast majority of translations can fall, and to which the concepts of "domestication" and "foreignizing" do not apply.pThis paper looks at iMonkey/i, Arthur Waley's English translation of the classical Chinese novel Xi you ji (Journey to the West), and shows how the above-mentioned concepts are not universally relevant, and how the translator, as an empathic and creative mediator, moves freely between the source language / culture and the target language / culture to seek the golden mean with respect to the effectiveness of the translation in artistic and communicative terms, neither "domesticating" nor "foreignizing."

Resumen: "With reference to translations of Dante's Divine Comedy in Spanish, French, Latin, English, German, and Chinese, as well as translations of Shakespeare's Macbeth in Italian, this paper discusses musicality as the most recalcitrant of all features in a source-language text, and attempts to show how, depending on factors to be examined in detail, intrafamily translation, that is, translation between languages of the same family, can capture the original music with varying degrees of success".

Resumen: Most practitioners of translation agree that translation is at best an ersatz, able to get across only part of the source text’s meaning, which is meaning on two levels: the semantic and the phonological. Even in translating an apparently simple lexical item, to say nothing of long stretches of discourse, they are keenly aware of what is being left out. On the semantic level, for example, the denotation of a lexical item may sometimes be preserved almost intact. However, its connotations, associations, or nuances, which can elicit subtle responses from readers of the original, often defy the process of carrying over or across, which is what transferre, the Latin word from which translate is derived, means. Yet, compared with musicality, a feature on the phonological level, all features on the semantic level will become relatively easy. With reference to translations of Dante’s Divine Comedy in Spanish, French, Latin, English, German, and Chinese, as well as translations of Shakespeare’s Macbeth in Italian, this paper discusses musicality as the most recalcitrant of all features in a source-language text, and attempts to show how, depending on factors to be examined in detail, intrafamily translation, that is, translation between languages of the same family, can capture the original music with varying degrees of success.