Dynamic equivalence as a theoretical system of translation (1964-1986)

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Normalisation

Baker (1996:183) defines normalisation as “a tendency to exaggerate features of the target language and to conform to its typical patterns”. It is “the tendency to conform to patterns and practices which are typical of the target language, even to the point of exaggerating them” (Baker 1996:176). She claims that this tendency is quite possibly influenced by the status of the source text and the source language, so that the higher the status of the source text and language, the less the tendency to normalise. Normalisation is most evident in the use of typical grammatical structures, punctuation and collocational patterns as they are retained or neutralised (i.e. normalised) by means of more habitual ones. Normalisation can be realised through substitution and lexical creation as the translation procedures.

Simplification

Baker (1996:181) defines simplification as “the tendency to simplify the language used in translation”. Translators usually adapt this strategy in order to make the information more accessible to the target readers. Toury (1995) believes that if the target text is found with a lower load information, it may suggest that ambiguous information in the source text has been disambiguated, that is, spelled out or made simpler in the translation process.
Simplification can be realised in three forms as translation strategies, namely, syntactic, stylistic and lexical forms. In the translation process, some complex syntax is made easier by replacing nonfinite clauses with finite ones and by replacing potentially ambiguous pronouns by forms which allow more precise identification (Kruger, 2006). Translators are sometimes urged to simplify the language they use in an attempt to communicate a foreign message to the target audience. Sometimes simplification is employed as an attempt to effect disambiguation by means of literal translation and omission or deletion.
Having thus identified and described the three groups of translation strategies above, this study draws on them as applied on survey.
According to Hervey and Higgins (1992) as well as Jaaskelainen (1999) strategic decisions precede decisions of detail and are superordinate to them as well as being preparatory and takes the following nature:
 An awareness of problems (conscious instead of intuitive use of strategies, teaching centred on awareness-increasing features).
 Context – and reader-boundedness (flexibility in the use of strategies and techniques conditioned by contextual factors).
 Compromise and relativism instead of universalism and norm-governed translation.
 Then informs the strategic (= problem-solving) translating.
The pattern provided above suggests that the translator’s decision to choose one rather than another of the available procedures in a given case is governed by communicative and linguistic considerations. This means that the translator’s strategy is not determined by a one-time decision but that it rather involves a series of decisions, each made and judged on its own merits. The same process also takes into account the context of the situation in which the translational act of communication takes place. Translators are faced with a variety of problems of the open-ended kind which suggests that there is no pre-determined solution.
In other words, these translation problems require the use of problem-solving strategies that are creative in nature. Jaaskelainen’s (1999:71) definition of strategy as “a series o competencies, a set of steps or processes that favour the acquisition, storage, and/or utilisation of information” suggests the need for high level of knowledge of the Source Language and the Target Language as well as some translational competence. Translational competence refers to the skill applied to translate and is acquired through formal training (Toury, 1986), and develops with bilingualism (Lorscher, 1995). According to Harris and Sherwood (1978), natural translation refers to the ability that develops automatically alongside bilingualism. Chesterman (1997) lists a number of general characteristics of translation strategy which include the following:
(1) They apply to a process.
(2) They involve text manipulation.
(3) They are goal-oriented.
(4) They are problem-centred.
(5) Potentially conscious; and
(6) They can be experienced and understood by someone other than the person
using them.
In order to ensure that the above-listed characteristics are satisfied, the translator must have a deep or profound understanding of the languages involved, knowledge of the domain-specific as well as transfer competence. A translation activity that deals with the expression in another language of what has been expressed in another while preserving semantic and stylistic equivalence, requires some level of competence in these basic elements. These basic elements should also include the power that exists between the two cultures involved, the status accorded to the translation itself in terms of the creativity expressed, as well as the specific expectations of the target text readers.
According to Tymoczko (1998:653), Corpus-based Translation Studies research focuses on both the process of translation and the products of translation, and it takes into account the smallest details of the translated texts as well as the largest cultural patterns both internal and external to the texts. The Corpus-based Translation Studies embodies the functionalist model within which translation can be described as a process, a product which is aimed at fulfilling its desired function. In other words, functionalist approaches still dominate the existence of Corpus-based Translation Studies. Functionality is not an inherent quality of a text, but a quality attributed to the text by the receiver at the moment of reception. It is the receiver who decides whether (and how) a text ‘functions’ (for them, in a specific situation). Combining functionalism with loyalty can be a corrective process instead of a radical Skopos theory. Nord (2002:35) paraphrases functionalism as ‘the translation purpose that justifies the translation procedures’, which could easily be interpreted as ‘the end justifies the means’.
Target readers may expect the target text that is far from faithful reproduction, but comprehensible, readable while others may expect an exact rendering of the author’s opinion in the target text. This perception influences the flexible adaptation of translation strategies in order to suit the target readers’ expectations. The approach may be seen as an attempt to achieve the necessary ‘complicity’ between actors and audience which are likely to be seen in conflict with the norms governing literary translations (Laviosa, 2002, Chesterman, 1997, Baker, 1995 and Toury, 1995). Corpus-based Translation Studies has since gained momentum, as Kruger (2002:71) notes, “it has derived its success from a four-fold conglomerate: data, description, theory and methodology”. The conglomerous side of Corpus-based Translation Studies, according to Kruger (2002) is a three-fold contribution to translation studies, namely, theoretical, practical and applied. It is considered as a springboard for further research on recurrent features typical of translated texts.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION OF THE STUDY
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Background of the study
1.3 Defining key concepts
1.3.1 Comparative analysis
1.3.2 Stylistic devices
1.3.3 Shakespeare’s plays
1.3.4 Xitsonga Translations
1.4 Research problem
1.4.1 Problem Statement
1.4.2 Research Question
1.5 Research aim and objectives
1.6 Rationale of the study
1.7 Scope of the study
1.8 Plan of the study
1.9 Summary
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Translation theories: Model for the study of translated literature
2.3 Theoretical overview on equivalence-based translation theories, descriptive theories and corpus-based studies
2.3.1 Equivalence-based translation studies (1946-1963)
2.3.2 Dynamic equivalence as a theoretical system of translation (1964-1986)
2.3.3 Functionalist translation theory (1987- 1989)
2.3.4 Corpus-based translation studies (CTS) and descriptive translation studies (DTS) [1990- to date]
2.4 The Source Text and Target Text language systems
2.5 Translating the sense of the original idiomatic expressions (stylistic devices) in Shakespearean plays
2.6 Summary
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research methods
3.3 Research design
3.4 Components of research design
3.5 Data collection and analysis procedure
3.6 Population sampling and sample size
3.7 Primary dataset: Corpus design for comparative analysis
3.8 Limitations
3.9 Validity and reliability
3.10 Ethical considerations
3.11 Summary
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Results on observation
4.3 Results on survey
4.3.1 Results on survey: Macbeth
4.3.2 Results on survey: Julius Caesar
4.4 Summary
CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Analysis and interpretation of results on observation
5.3 Analysis and interpretation of results on survey
5.3.1 Analysis and interpretation of results on survey: Macbeth
5.3.2 Analysis and interpretation of results on survey: Julius Caesar
5.4 Summary
CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH FINDINGS

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
A comparative analysis of stylistic devices in Shakespeare’s plays, Julius Caesar and Macbeth and their xitsonga translations