Su búsqueda retornó 3 resultados.

Resumen: The notion of norm has been discussed from different points of view in Soviet linguistics: the literary norm, the norm of the target language, the stylistic norm, the norm of equivalence /Komissarov, 1980/. In this paper we shall consider the pragmatic aspects of translation that are connected with the participants in the translation act: the Sender (S), the Reciever (R), the Translator (Tr).

Resumen: This paper concisely reinvestigates translatorial action and observes that the 'meaning' of lexical items is not the same with the 'sense' of lexical items. The central distinctions between the two terms are that the meaning of lexical items is not only a subjective application, but is also dependent on its environment for its truth-value within any given linguistic discourse. The sense of a word however, refers to its objective use and is context independent. Meaning is viewed as having a direct link with the communicative approach to translation. The approach derives from the Communication Theory, which core assumption is that unpredictability is equivalent to informativity. Unpredictability can be unravelled by building in redundancy into the target text to avoid communication overload.pThrough a rigorous theoretical explications coupled with an avalanche of exemplifications, it is observed that communicatively generated texts appear smoother and more comprehensible than its semantic counter part. However, the writers, suggest that the communicative approach to translation is necessarily applicable in cases of use variations occasioned by differential discourse practice between the source and the target language socio-cultures. Sequel to that, use variations between languages and socio-cultures in contact often pose linguistic structures that resist semantic rendition, because it fails to recapture the ideational content of the source language text in such instances. It is the failure of the semantic approach to yield adequate text(s) at the target end that necessitates the communicative type.

Resumen: Implied meaning is not an inherent part of translation, but it is important all the same as no one says everything while speaking. Implied messages are often perceived through shared experiences. To decode and encode an implied cultural meaning calls for a thorough understanding of that culture. The translator should be able to distinguish a consciously implied meaning from an unconscious one. In the former, the locutor passes on the message indirectly but is not ready to accept responsibility for the implied meaning. In the second case, the locutor has no intention to deliberately hide his intentions behind the words. However, this can lead to intercultural communication problems. To my mind, the attitude of a translator to these implied meanings is this: be as faithful as possible to the spirit of the deliberately hidden message, but be more explicit where the implied meaning seems to have been hidden unconsciously. There is however need for caution as the translator cannot be too sure of knowing the attitude of the author all the time.