Luận văn tiếng Anh: A study on pragmatic equivalence in the English Vietnamese translation of the story "Confession of an economic hit man" by John Perkins = Nghiên cứu tính tương đương ngữ dụng trong bản dịch Anh-Việt tác phẩm "Lời thú tội của một sát thủ kinh tế" của John Perkins. M.A Thesis Linguistics: 60 22 15
Nhà xuất bản: ĐHNN
Ngày: 2009
Chủ đề: Tương đương ngữ dụng
TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
PART I: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale of the study 1
2. Purposes of the study 2
3. Scope of the study 2
4. Methodology 2
5. Design of the study 4
PART II: DEVELOPMENT 5
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 5
1.1. What is Pragmatics 5
1.2. Pragmatic Markers 5
1.3. What is Equivalence in Translation 9
1.4. Pragmatic Equivalence 10
1.5. E. A. Nida’s response-based approach on Translation Quality Assessment 14
1.6. Pragmatic features of the source text and the receptor of the target text 16
CHAPTER 2: PRAGMATIC MARKERS IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT. 20
2.1. Functions of Pragmatic Markers in Rhetorical Structure 20
2.1.1. Emphasizer 20
2.1.2. Comment Msarker 20
2.1.3. Evidential Marker 20
2.1.4. Resumption Marker 21
2.1.5. Addition Marker 21
2.1.6. Concluding Marker 22
2.1.7. Evaluator 22
2.1.8. Topic Shifter 22
2.1.9. Clarifier 222.2. Functions of Pragmatic Markers in Sequential Structure 23
2.2.1. Opening segment boundary marker 23
2.2.2. Closing segment boundary marker 23
2.3. Functions of Pragmatic Markers in Inferential Structure 24
2.3.1. Contextual Constrainer 24
2.3.2. Monitoring Marker 24
2.3.3. Justification Marker 24
2.3.4. Face-threat mitigator 25
CHAPTER 3: TREATMENTS OF PRAGMATIC MARKERS IN THE
VIETNAMESE TRANSLATION
26
3.1. Treatment of pragmatic markers in Rhetorical Structure 27
3.1.1. Treatment of Emphasizer 27
3.1.2. Treatment of Comment marker 27
3.1.3. Treatment of Evidential Marker 27
3.1.4. Treatment of Resumption Marker 27
3.1.5. Treatment of Addition Marker 28
3.1.6. Treatment of Concluding Marker 28
3.1.7. Treatment of Evaluator 28
3.1.8. Treatment of Topic Shifter 28
3.1.9. Treatment of Clarifier 29
3.2. Treatment of pragmatic markers in Sequential Structure 29
3.2.1. Treatment of Opening segment boundary marker 29
3.2.2. Treatment of Closing segment boundary marker 29
3.3. Treatment of pragmatic markers in Inferential Structure 29
3.3.1. Treatment of Contextual Constrainer 29
3.3.2. Treatment of Monitoring Marker 30
3.3.3. Treatment of Justification Marker 30
3.3.4. Treatment of Face-threat mitigator 30
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi3.4. Analysis of the pragmatic equivalence in the translation with regards to
pragmatic markers through a written discourse completion task.
31
3.4.1. The participants 31
3.4.2. The instruments 31
3.4.3. Data analysis 31
3.4.4. Results 31
PART 3: CONCLUSION 41
1. Findings of the study 41
2. Implications 42
3. Recommendations for further research. 43
REFERENCES 441
PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study
Much ink has flown on discussing the term equivalence in translation. It is the
relationship between a source text (ST) and a target text (TT) that allows the TT to
be considered as a translation of the ST. It signifies any relation characterizing
translation under a specified set of circumstances. Equivalence was a relationship
between two texts in two languages, rather than between the languages
themselves. It can be said that success of a translation is determined not only by
the equivalence of meaning. The degree of success also depends on some other
factors like stylistic equivalence, pragmatic equivalence or textual equivalence.
The neglect of any equivalence for any possible reasons may affect or reduce the
target readers‟ reception of a translation. Therefore, it is required for a considerate
translator to be aware of the SL text‟s pragmatic peculiarities and reproduce them
in the target language one. In practice, an important assumption which translators
entertain seems to be one epitomized by something Eugene Nida said many years
ago, echoing Jakobson (1959): “Anything which can be said in one language can
be said in another, unless the form is an essential element of the message (Nida
and Taber 1969:4).”
The focus of the study will be put on pragmatic equivalence between the source
and target language texts, which is indicated by taking pragmatic markers in both
texts into consideration.
Accordingly, the book “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” (published in 2004)
is chosen. John Perkins lifted the veil on a world rarely seen by most people. He
took us on a tour of the costs and consequences of American corporate hegemony,
dispelling myths of the „free market‟, and forcing us to peer deep into our own
souls. As Perkins states in his earlier works, "The world is as you dream it," so the
question is, “what will you dream?” This book is translated into Vietnamese by a
group of translators headed by Lê Đồng Tâm and has caught a great interest of
certain Vietnamese readers.
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi2
2. Purposes of the study
The study sets out to obtain the purposes as follows:
- To investigate the numerous functions of pragmatic markers in the ST as well as
the treatment of these markers in the TT.
- To study the dynamic equivalence between the original text and its translation.
- To suggest some implications for teaching and learning of English in general and
translation studies in particular.
3. Scope of the study
The study is focused on dynamic equivalence between “Confessions of an
Economic Hit Man” & its “Lời thú tội của một sát thủ kinh tế”. More specifically,
the study is confined to the relationship between pragmatic effect of pragmatic
markers valid for different receiver groups and habits of using these markers as
well as of choosing language style in different language pairs. The ground for the
investigation in this study is the notion of dynamic equivalence proposed by Nida
& Taber (1969), Koller (1989), Baker (1992), Newmark (1981), Hatim and
Mason (1990) and Monia Bayar (2007) and the conception of pragmatics and
pragmatic markers suggested by Levinson (1983), Richards J.C, Platt J & Platt H
(1992) and Fraser (1999)
4. Methodology
4.1. Research Questions
- What are pragmatic features of the source text and the receptors‟response to the
translation text?
- What are functions of pragmatic markers demonstrated in John Perkins‟s original
work? Are these markers treated equivalently in the translation text?
- To what extent are the original text and the translation pragmatically equivalent?3
4.2. Methods
On the one hand, this study will be conducted under the corpus-based analysis.
The aim of this method is to attempt to outline the existing territory occupied by a
new field of research in translation studies. The research techniques are gathering
quantitative data via a survey questionnaire and presenting the results through
statistics and tables. On the other hand, the qualitative method will be resorted to
as a supplementary one and not officially employed. It will Giúp understand the
meaning of the numbers produced by quantitative methods. Using quantitative
methods, it is possible to give precise and testable expression to qualitative ideas.
This combination of quantitative and qualitative data gathering is often referred to
as mixed-methods research.
4.3. Data collection procedures
To investigate the pragmatic equivalence between the original text “Confessions
of an Economic Hit Man” and its Vietnamese translation, the following steps will
be taken to collect data for the study:
- doing document analyses to build up a strong theoretical framework for the
study
- conducting a survey according to DCT method to identify and collect all
pragmatic markers explicit in the SL and TL texts.
In the DCT the discourse is structured so that part of it is left open and part
closed. A space is provided for subjects to supply speech act under investigation,
but the response is provided in order to cue the respondent as to the appropriate
nature of the speech act realization, i.e., the level of formality, and a description of
the roles and relationship of the interlocutors.
Also the DCT is an effective means of studying the stereotypical perceived
requirements for a socially appropriate response and is a good way to gain insight
into social and psychological factors that are likely to affect speech and
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi4
performance i.e. it avoids those very context specific constraints that influence
authentic data.
Cohen (1996, p.25) concludes that “discourse completion tests are
effective means of gathering a large amount of data quickly, creating an initial
classification of semantic formulas, and ascertaining the structure of speech act
under consideration.”
- holding discussions with colleagues in the field to investigate their
viewpoints and experience in translating pragmatic markers
4.4. Data Analysis
To facilitate the process of analyzing data, the inductive method has been
employed. Then, comparison and contrast between the original and its translation
are made as well as detailed analyses are carried out so that a conclusion on the
level of pragmatic equivalence between the original and translation can be
reached.
5. Design of the study
The study is composed of three main parts: the introduction, the
development and the conclusion.
The introduction states the rationale, purposes, scope, methodology and design of
the study.
The development consists of three chapters:
Chapter one: Theoretical background.
Chapter two: Pragmatic markers in the original text.
Chapter three: Treatments of pragmatic markers in the Vietnamese translation.
The conclusion summarizes the main points discussed in the previous parts and
puts forwards some implications for translation learning and practice.5
PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. What is pragmatics?
Some linguistics tend to take into consideration intensional definitions of
pragmatics which are: "the study of the relations of signs to interpreters" (Morris,
1938: 84); "the study of indexical rules for relating linguistic form to a given
context" (Bates, 1976: 3); "a theory that has as its subject matter the relationship
between a language, its subject matter, and the users of the language" (Martin,
1971 : 138); "the theory of the relation between the language users and the
language structure" (Apostel, 1971: 33); "the science of language use" (Haberland
and Mey, 1977: 1). Others deal with extensional definitions: "Pragmatics is the
study of deixis, implicature, presupposition, speech acts, and aspects of
discourse structure" (Levinson, 1983:27); "Pragmatics, for a natural language,
concerns 'illucutionary force', 'implicature', 'presupposition', and 'contextdependent
acceptability'" (Gazdar, 1979: 2).
Richards J.C, Platt J & Platt H (1992:284) regards Pragmatics as the study of the
use of language in communication, particularly the relationships between
sentences and the contexts and situations in which they are used. Pragmatics
includes the study of:
a. how the interpretation and use of UTTERANCES depend on knowledge of the
real world
b. how speakers use and understand SPEECH ACTS
c. how the structure of sentences is influenced by the relationship between the
speaker and the hearer.
1.2. Pragmatic markers
Pragmatic markers are polyfuntional cues that predicate changes in the speaker‟s
cognition, attitudes, and beliefs and facilitate the transmission of illocutionary
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi6
force and intentions. The speaker makes use of markers to segment, recover,
organize and reformulate the information provided to the hearer, but also to share
common ground, assumptions and presuppositions with him/her. Behind the use of
a particular marker, there are therefore not only ideational, rhetorical and
structural purposes, but a strong inferential component as well that is reflected in
certain parts of the pragmatic structure of the discourse.
Brinton (1996:33-5) provides an exhaustive list of basic features of pragmatic
markers that, although not fully manifested by all units that could be considered
pragmatic markers, suggest a range of properties that most markers display. One
of these features is that makers have little or no propositional meaning, which
might make us conclude that the presence of a device of such characteristics is
totally unnecessary in the message we are trying to convey. This is basically true
as far as informational value of the message, that is, a marker is not strictly
obligatory for the full understanding of a sentence or segment, but, as Schiffrin
suggests (1987:318), it is probably necessary to make the type of relationship
between preceding and following propositions explicit and clear. In a similar line
of argument, Fraser (1999:946) claims: “a marker reinforces a relationship
between segments by virtue of discourse marker meaning, while on the other hand,
the context, both linguistic and non-linguistic, elaborates and enriches the
relationship based on the details present”. The attempts to clarify the status of
markers have been varied (similar to the numerous labels attached to them).
However, although there seems to be a general agreement among scholars that
markers have a strong procedural meaning, that is, that they are key traces for the
right interpretation of a given piece of discourse, there is no consensus on the sort
of relationship that these units signal.
In this study we proposed four groups of pragmatic markers (Fraser,1999:946).
First, there are basic pragmatic markers, which specify more or less the potential7
force (type) of the basic message conveyed by the sentence: the message conveyed
with the propositional content of the sentence as the message content. Every
sentence has at least one basic pragmatic marker. This group includes sentence
mood (declarative, interrogative, and imperative structures) and lexical
expressions, for example, performative expressions such as I promise, I claim, and
I regret, and certain forms such as please and kindly. These markers are illustrated
by the examples in (3).
(3) a) I regret that he is still here. b) Admittedly, I was taken in. c) The cat is sick.
By virtue of the I regret in (3a) the speaker is conveying an expression of regret
(more accurately, the sentence has the potential when uttered of conveying an
expression of regret). While in sentence (3b) the speaker is conveying an
admission. Sentence (3c) has no lexical basic pragmatic marker, as do the first
two, but its declarative mood signals that the speaker is expressing belief (a claim,
an admission, a report) towards the state of the world expressed by the
propositional content.
Second, there are commentary pragmatic markers, which signal an entire message
which provides a comment on the direct basic message. These markers are
optionally present but when they do occur, their message is typically very general,
with a single word often signaling both the message force and content. Obviously,
they constitute pragmatic idioms. The sentences in (4) illustrate this type of
marker.
(4) a) Stupidly, Sara didn‟t fax the correct form.
b) I‟m not an expert, but shouldn‟t we be there by now.
In (4a), the basic message is (arguably) a report that Sara didn‟t fax the correct
form, while the commentary message, signaled by stupidly, is that the speaker
believes Sara‟s failure to act to have been stupid. In (4b), the I’m not an expert,
but signals that the basic message which follows is, in the speaker‟s opinion, not
going to be well received by the addressee and the speaker is trying to reduce the
face loss involved.
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi8
Third, there are parallel pragmatic markers, also optional, which signal an entire
message separate from the basic and any commentary messages. The sentences in
(5) are illustrative of parallel markers.
(5) a) John, take off your dirty shoes. b) In God‟s name, what are you doing now?
In (5a), in addition to the basic message of a directive that John take off his dirty
shoes, the speaker is conveying a message, signaled by John, that it is John who is
being addressed. In (5b), in God’s name signals exasperation on the part of the
speaker which may or may not be related to the hearer‟s activities.
Finally, there are discourse pragmatic markers, again optional, which signal a
message specifying how the basic message is related to the foregoing discourse
context. The sentences in (6) illustrate these markers.
(6) a) Jacob was very tired. So, he left early.
b) Martha‟s party is tomorrow. Incidentally, when is your party?
Here, in (6a), the so signals that the speaker views the report that he left early
should be treated as a conclusion based on the message conveyed by the preceding
sentence, while in (6b) the incidentally signals that the following basic message
should be treated as a shift in topic.
To summarize, a basic marker signals the force of the basic message, a
commentary marker signals a message which comments on the basic message, a
parallel marker signals a message in addition to the basic message, and a discourse
marker signals the relationship of the basic message to the foregoing discourse.
This may be shown schematically in (7).
(7) Discourse Phần mềm (Parallel Phần mềm (Commentary Phần mềm (Basic Phần mềm (Propositional
Content)))).
Although it is rare to find all four types of pragmatic markers in a single sentence,
it does occur
(8) I appreciate that you are a member of the Police Benevolent Association and a
supporter of the baseball league. However, frankly Sir, 1 estimate that you were
going a bit more than 86 miles per hour.9
In the similar line, the proposal here presented (Gonzalez, 2004) builds upon
Redeker‟s (1990) discourse coherence model and following classification of
markers according to the model. First, markers found in the ideational structure
are considered those that set up logico-semantic argumentative relations (of cause,
reason, result, concession, contrast, time, etc.). They have descriptive or lexical
meaning and have been traditionally called in the literature argumentative
connectors. Lexical units that fully fall under this category (units such as therefore,
in contrast, on the other hand, nevertheless, because, etc.) will therefore be
excluded from this study and only markers whose functions fall under the
rhetorical, sequential and inferential components will be considered and discussed.
Markers whose main functions are rhetorical signal the speaker‟s intentions and
goals and basically convey the illocutionary force of the story. Markers found in
the sequential structure delimit segments boundaries and sustain the discourse
network; they highly facilitate the in-and-out shift of the narrative segments. In the
case of markers that have dominant inferential role, the link that is set up between
the cognitive domain of the speaker and hearer is fundamental to understand and
grasp the point of the story.
1.3. What is Equivalence in Translation?
• It is the relationship between a source text (ST) and a target text (TT) that allows
the TT to be considered as a translation of the ST.
• Any relation characterizing translation under a specified set of circumstances.
Equivalence is relative and not absolute, it emerges from the context of situation
by the interplay of (many different factors) and has no existence outside that
context, and in particular it is not stipulated in advance by an algorithm for the
conversion of linguistic units of L1 into linguistic units of L2” (House, 1977)
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi10
1.4. Pragmatic equivalence: (Nida (1964) calls it “dynamic equivalence”).
The pragmatic level is generally concerned with language that is tied to social
context in a different way. Pragmatics is the study of language used in a specific
social context 'do things' rather than 'say things'. Language used in this way will
often have a force that goes against what seems to be its literal meaning. The SL
and TL words have the same effect on the reader or mainly aiming at the receiver,
to whom the translation is directed.
In extreme cases, where linguistic and cultural materials are inextricably blended,
no very close equivalent is available. In these cases, the translator needs to seek a
solution, probably situated on a different linguistic level compared with the SL, in
order to produce an effect on the reader of the TT that should be as close as
possible to that produced on the reader of the ST.
Contexts of use match in this case, and so does the effect on the TT reader that
will here be sufficiently close to that experienced by the ST reader. To achieve
similarities of effect and cater for reader expectations is to attain full pragmatic or
dynamic equivalence.
The aim of this discussion is to shed as much as possible light on readers. The
readership is a group of readers that the text is aimed at with such following
features as: the level of education, the class and age and sex (if marked).
There is a tendency to make the translation for educated, middle-class readership
in an informal, colloquial style. There are three types of readership: expert,
educated layman and the uninformed.
However, the more cultural (the more local, the more remote in time and in space)
a text is, the less equivalent effect even conceivable unless the reader is
imaginative, sensitive and stepped in the SL culture.
Koller’s (1989) categories establish a descriptive framework which involves
various types of equivalence, among which are: denotative, connotative, textnormative, pragmatic and formal equivalence.11
According to Koller, pragmatic equivalence, which is synonymous with Nida‟s
dynamic equivalence (Kenny 1998b:77), “means translating the text for a
particular readership” (Koller 1989:103). The expectations of the target readers
have to be considered. It is also called “communicative equivalence”.
This utterance “Hi, how are you?” shows an illocutionary meaning of greeting in
English-speaking countries.
Pragmatic equivalence (Baker:1992) is considered the most complicated level of
equivalence, which requires the translator to understand the underlining message
of the ST. Pragmatic equivalence is associated with implicatures and strategies of
avoidance during the translation process. She claims that the translator needs to
work out implications of the ST in order to get the ST message across. The role
of the translator is to recreate the author‟s intention in another culture in such a
way that Giúp the audience in the target culture understand it clearly.
Texts which may have implicatures can be poems, songs, idioms, literature or
texts involving much culture-specific understanding.
Baker‟s concept well matches the definition of pragmatics by Levinson.
It should also be noted that Newmark's distinction between 'communicative
translation' and 'semantic translation' in his book Approaches to Translation
(1981) is similar to Nida's types of equivalence. For 'communicative translation',
which tends to create the same effects on the reader of the TT as those obtained by
readers of the ST, resembles Nida's notion of dynamic equivalence, whereas,
'semantic translation', which focuses on the rendition of the contextual meaning of
the ST according to the syntactic and the semantic characteristics of the TT, is
similar to Nida's formal equivalence.
However, many critics of the 'equivalent effect' by Newmark come in his Textbook
of Translation (1988). Newmark sees Nida's 'equivalent effect' as: The desirable
result, rather than the aim of any translation. It is an unlikely result in two cases:
(a) if the purpose of the SL text is to affect and the TL translation is to inform (or
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi12
vice versa); (b) if there is a pronounced cultural gap between the SL and the TL
texts.
We infer from this quotation that the 'equivalent effect' is a result which all
translators long to achieve. However, this result can be unachievable if the ST and
the TT do not share the same goal; i.e., to inform or to affect, or if they do not
have the same cultural equivalents. The possession of cultural references, together
with the remoteness in time and space reduce the possibility of achieving
'equivalent effects', except in case the reader is imaginative, sensitive and has a
good knowledge of the SL culture.
According to Levinson‟s notion of pragmatics, we realize Newmark referred
pragmatic equivalence to the same purpose of the both texts (corresponding to the
primary text‟s implicature& presupposition) and cultural contexts (affecting
directly communicative effect in terms of deixis as well as aspects of discourse
structure).
Additionally, the development in equivalence research is also characterized by the
work of the Syrian theorist Monia Bayar (2007). In her book To Mean Or Not To
Mean, Bayar distinguishes between formal equivalence, semantic equivalence,
cultural equivalence and pragmatic equivalence. As far as 'pragmatic equivalence'
is concerned, Bayar (2007) points out that this type tends to reproduce the context
and text goals of the SL. She also shares the same idea with Hatim and Mason
(1990: 236-8) that "pragmatic equivalence subsumes all of the semio-pragmaticcommunicative layers of communication." Examples of these semiotic and
communicative dimensions are genre, field, mode, tenor, text type and translation
purpose.
Nida and Taber: Formal Equivalence and dynamic Equivalence
In his work on Bible translation, Nida concentrates on studying meaning in both
its semantic and pragmatic natures. He breaks with the old stories, which regard
meanings of words as fixed and unchanged, to give meaning a more functional13
nature. For him, words get their meanings according to the context and can be
changed through the culture in which they are used.
Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal
equivalence—which in the third edition by Nida and Taber (1982) is referred to as
formal correspondence—and dynamic equivalence. Formal correspondence
'focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content', unlike dynamic
equivalence which is based upon 'the principle of equivalent effect' (1964:159).
Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the closest
equivalent of a SL word or phrase. Nida and Taber make it clear that there are not
always formal equivalents between language pairs. They therefore suggest that
these formal equivalents should be used wherever possible if the translation aims
at achieving formal rather than dynamic equivalence. The use of formal
equivalents might at times have serious implications in the TT since the translation
will not be easily understood by the target audience (Fawcett, 1997). Nida and
Taber themselves assert that 'Typically, formal correspondence distorts the
grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the
message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard'.
Concerning dynamic equivalence, Nida mentions that this type is based on "the
principle of equivalent effect", in which "the relationship between receptor and
message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the
original receptor and the message." Dynamic equivalence is defined as a
translation principle according to which a translator seeks to translate the meaning
of the original in such a way that the TL wording will trigger the same impact on
the TC audience as the original wording did upon the ST audience. They argue
that 'Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change
follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual
consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the
message is preserved and the translation is faithful'.
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi14
One can easily see that Nida is in favour of the application of dynamic
equivalence, as a more effective translation procedure. This is perfectly
understandable if we take into account the context of the situation in which Nida
was dealing with the translation phenomenon, that is to say, his translation of the
Bible. Thus, the product of the translation process, that is the text in the TL, must
have the same impact on the different readers it was addressing. Only in Nida and
Taber's edition is it clearly stated that 'dynamic equivalence in translation is far
more than mere correct communication of information'.
Despite using a linguistic approach to translation, Nida is much more interested in
the message of the text or, in other words, in its semantic quality. He therefore
strives to make sure that this message remains clear in the target text.
Nida & Taber‟s conception is in line with aspects of language studied in
pragmatics.
In brief, it is clear from the above diversifying views and theories that the notion
of pragmatic equivalence is arbitrary and relative as well. It is, in fact, difficult to
determine since no one could objectively define the point at which the TT
becomes equal to the ST. Thus, to be moderate as much as possible, we will not
define pragmatic equivalence as a point of translation proficiency or reject its
existence in translation as some wished.
1.5. E. A. Nida’s response-based approach on Translation Quality Assessment
Before Nida, most scholars writing about translation applied a particular linguistic
approach to the topic, taking translation to be a type of applied linguistics. But
Nida‟s concern centered on a systematic approach to translation. He saw in
linguistics the necessary tools of analysis, and he drew on what at the time was a
new science to develop an overall approach to transla
2. "Oh, I've been around too," he said
mockingly. (I,5,31) => initiating
utterances and relating them to the
foregoing interaction.
“Ồ, tui cũ ng đã đi rấ t nhiề u nơi” , ông ta
nói một cách chế giễu. (I,5,44)
3. "He just shrugged." Our eyes met.
"Oh, Paula, I detest myself for playing
this role ." (III,22,125)
“Anh ta chỉ nhú n vai” , tui bắ t gặ p á nh
mắ t củ a Paula. “Ôi, Paula, anh căm ghé t
chính bản thân mình trong cái vai trò
này”. (III,22,176)
Table 11 Treatment of Closing segment boundary marker
ST TT
1. "Speaking of oil," he said. He took
another puff on his cigar and flipped
past a couple of the note cards. "We all
know how dependent our own country
is on oil. Indonesia can be a powerful
ally to us in that regard. So, as you
develop this master plan, please do
everything you can to make sure that
the oil industry and all the others that
serve it—ports, pipelines, construction
companies—get whatever they are
likely to need in the way of electricity
for the entire duration of this twentyfive-year plan ." (I,4,25)
“Tấ t cả chú ng ta đề u biế t đấ t nướ c củ a
chúng ta phụ thuộc vào dầu mỏ đến
mứ c nà o . Xét về khía cạnh đó ,
Inđônêxia có thể là mộ t đồ ng minh
hùng mạnh của chúng ta. Vì thế, khi cá c
bạn dựng bả n qui hoạ ch tổ ng thể
này,…”(I,4,36)
2. “…All of us will put our heads
together then. So, before we leave we
gotta be absolutely certain we have all
the information we'll need….” (I,5,29)
“…Tấ t cả chú ng ta sẽ phả i cù ng bà n bạ c
vớ i nhau. Vậ y là, trướ c khi rờ i khỏ i đây
chúng ta phải hoàn toàn chắc rằng
chúng ta đã có đầy đủ tất cả các thông
tin cầ n thiế t… .”.(I,5,42)
3. "Now the other side," Fidel said .
"I've got official papers and you're a
U.S. citizen, so we can go." (II,11,65)
“Bây giờ là mặ t kia củ a bứ c tranh” ,
Fidel nó i vớ i tui : “tui đã xin đượ c giấ y
tờ chí nh thứ c và anh là công đân Mỹ
nên chúng ta có thể đi.” (II,11,89)
4. "I was one." He shook his head,
seemed lost in thought. We sat in
silence for a few minutes before he
spoke again. "I do not like beggaring.
My child dies. So I raise poppies."
x(IV,32,193)
“tui đã từ ng là mộ t trong số đó .” Anh
ta lắ c lắ c đầ u , dườ ng như đang chì m
trong suy nghĩ . Chúng tui ngồi yên lặng
mộ t lá t rồ i bỗ ng anh lạ i nó i : “tui không
thích phải đi ăn mày . Con tui sắ p chế t .
Vậ y nên tui phải trồng cây anh túc .”
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phiviii
(IV,32,271)
5. "Quite simple. He is your only real
ally in the Middle East, and the
industrial world rotates on the axle of
oil that is the Middle East. Oh, you have
Israel, of course, but that's actually a
liability to you, not an asset. And no oil
there. Your politicians must placate the
Jewish vote, must get their money to
finance campaigns. So you're stuck with
Israel, I'm afraid. However, Iran is the
key. Your oil companies — which carry
even more power than the Jews — need
us. You need our shah—or you think
you do, just as you thought you needed
South Vietnam's corrupt leaders."
(III,19,115)
“Đơn giả n thôi , ông ta thự c sự là đồ ng
minh duy nhấ t củ a cá c ông ở Trung
Đông nà y. Mà thế giới công nghiệp lại
đang quay quanh trụ c dầ u lử a là Trung
Đông. Tấ t nhiên cá c ông cò n có đồ ng
minh là Ixaren , nhưng thự c chấ t đó là
mộ t mó n nợ chứ không phả i là tà i sả n
của các ông . Và ở Ixaren lại chẳng có
dầ u. Các chính trị gia nước ông sẽ phải
xoa dị u cá c cử tri Do Thá i , phải dùng
tiề n củ a họ để tà i trợ cho cá c chiế n dị ch
của mình. Vì thế, tui e là vớ i Ixaren, các
ông đang bị mắ c kẹ t . Tuy nhiên , Iran
chính là chìa khóa giúp các ông giải
quyế t vấ n đề nà y . Nhữ ng công ty dầ u
lử a củ a cá c ông - nhữ ng công ty đang
nắ m giữ thậ m chí nhiề u quyề n lự c hơn
cả người Do Thái - cầ n chú ng tui . Các
ông cầ n , hoặ c í t nhấ t là cá c ông nghĩ
rằ ng mì nh cầ n Quố c vương . Giố ng như
khi cá c ông nghĩ mì nh cầ n nhữ ng nhà
lãnh đạo tham nhũng”. (III,19,159)
Table 12 Treatment of Contextual Constrainer
ST TT
"We must windows the Indonesians over. If
they join the Communist bloc, well. . ."
She drew a finger across her throat and
then smiled sweetly. (I, 2, 16)
“Chú ng ta phả i lôi ké o ngườ i dân
Inđônêxia về phí a mì nh . Chà, họ mà
không theo chú ng ta thì ...” cô ta đưa
ngón trỏ lên vạch ngang qua cổ và mỉ m
cườ i ngọ t ngà o. (I, 2, 23)
Table 13 Treatment of Monitoring Marker
ST TT
1. "You see, it is the same here," he
said. "The desert is our environment.
The Flowering Desert project threatens
nothing less than the destruction of our
entire fabric. How can we allow this to
happen?" (III,18,111)
“Anh thấ y đấ y , tình hình ở đây cũng y
như vậ y” , ông ta nó i . “Sa mạ c là môi
trườ ng củ a chú ng tui . Dự á n Sa mạ c nở
hoa đe dọ a phá hủ y toà n bộ nề n văn hó a
của chúng tôi. Làm sao chúng tô i có thể
để điều đó xảy ra được chứ ?”
(III,18,154)
2. "You see, this man who calls himself
the King of Kings is in reality satanic.
Ông thấ y đây , kẻ luôn tự xưng mình là
Vua của các vị Vua thực chất là mộtix
His father was deposed by your CIA
with — I hate to say it — my help,
because he was said to be a Nazi
collaborator. And then there was the
Mossadegh calamity. Today, our shah is
on the route to surpassing Hitler in the
realms of evil. He does this with the full
knowledge and support of your
government." (III,19,114;115)
con quỷ Satăng . CIA củ a cá c ông đã
phế truấ t cha ông ta , và dù rất ghét khi
phải nói ra , nhưng việ c nà y đượ c thự c
hiệ n vớ i sự giú p đỡ củ a tui . Vì cha ông
ta bị coi là đồ ng minh củ a phá t xí t. Và
sau đó là thả m họ a Mossadegh . Ngày
nay, Quố c vương củ a chú ng tui cò n
vượ t xa cả Hitle trong cá i thế giớ i củ a
quỷ dữ . Chính phủ các ông biết rõ ông
ta là m nhữ ng điề u nà y và hoà n toà n ủ ng
hộ ”. (III,19,158;159)
Do Drive thay đổi chính sách, nên một số link cũ yêu cầu duyệt download. các bạn chỉ cần làm theo hướng dẫn.
Password giải nén nếu cần: ket-noi.com | Bấm trực tiếp vào Link để tải:
Nhà xuất bản: ĐHNN
Ngày: 2009
Chủ đề: Tương đương ngữ dụng
TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
PART I: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale of the study 1
2. Purposes of the study 2
3. Scope of the study 2
4. Methodology 2
5. Design of the study 4
PART II: DEVELOPMENT 5
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 5
1.1. What is Pragmatics 5
1.2. Pragmatic Markers 5
1.3. What is Equivalence in Translation 9
1.4. Pragmatic Equivalence 10
1.5. E. A. Nida’s response-based approach on Translation Quality Assessment 14
1.6. Pragmatic features of the source text and the receptor of the target text 16
CHAPTER 2: PRAGMATIC MARKERS IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT. 20
2.1. Functions of Pragmatic Markers in Rhetorical Structure 20
2.1.1. Emphasizer 20
2.1.2. Comment Msarker 20
2.1.3. Evidential Marker 20
2.1.4. Resumption Marker 21
2.1.5. Addition Marker 21
2.1.6. Concluding Marker 22
2.1.7. Evaluator 22
2.1.8. Topic Shifter 22
2.1.9. Clarifier 222.2. Functions of Pragmatic Markers in Sequential Structure 23
2.2.1. Opening segment boundary marker 23
2.2.2. Closing segment boundary marker 23
2.3. Functions of Pragmatic Markers in Inferential Structure 24
2.3.1. Contextual Constrainer 24
2.3.2. Monitoring Marker 24
2.3.3. Justification Marker 24
2.3.4. Face-threat mitigator 25
CHAPTER 3: TREATMENTS OF PRAGMATIC MARKERS IN THE
VIETNAMESE TRANSLATION
26
3.1. Treatment of pragmatic markers in Rhetorical Structure 27
3.1.1. Treatment of Emphasizer 27
3.1.2. Treatment of Comment marker 27
3.1.3. Treatment of Evidential Marker 27
3.1.4. Treatment of Resumption Marker 27
3.1.5. Treatment of Addition Marker 28
3.1.6. Treatment of Concluding Marker 28
3.1.7. Treatment of Evaluator 28
3.1.8. Treatment of Topic Shifter 28
3.1.9. Treatment of Clarifier 29
3.2. Treatment of pragmatic markers in Sequential Structure 29
3.2.1. Treatment of Opening segment boundary marker 29
3.2.2. Treatment of Closing segment boundary marker 29
3.3. Treatment of pragmatic markers in Inferential Structure 29
3.3.1. Treatment of Contextual Constrainer 29
3.3.2. Treatment of Monitoring Marker 30
3.3.3. Treatment of Justification Marker 30
3.3.4. Treatment of Face-threat mitigator 30
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi3.4. Analysis of the pragmatic equivalence in the translation with regards to
pragmatic markers through a written discourse completion task.
31
3.4.1. The participants 31
3.4.2. The instruments 31
3.4.3. Data analysis 31
3.4.4. Results 31
PART 3: CONCLUSION 41
1. Findings of the study 41
2. Implications 42
3. Recommendations for further research. 43
REFERENCES 441
PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study
Much ink has flown on discussing the term equivalence in translation. It is the
relationship between a source text (ST) and a target text (TT) that allows the TT to
be considered as a translation of the ST. It signifies any relation characterizing
translation under a specified set of circumstances. Equivalence was a relationship
between two texts in two languages, rather than between the languages
themselves. It can be said that success of a translation is determined not only by
the equivalence of meaning. The degree of success also depends on some other
factors like stylistic equivalence, pragmatic equivalence or textual equivalence.
The neglect of any equivalence for any possible reasons may affect or reduce the
target readers‟ reception of a translation. Therefore, it is required for a considerate
translator to be aware of the SL text‟s pragmatic peculiarities and reproduce them
in the target language one. In practice, an important assumption which translators
entertain seems to be one epitomized by something Eugene Nida said many years
ago, echoing Jakobson (1959): “Anything which can be said in one language can
be said in another, unless the form is an essential element of the message (Nida
and Taber 1969:4).”
The focus of the study will be put on pragmatic equivalence between the source
and target language texts, which is indicated by taking pragmatic markers in both
texts into consideration.
Accordingly, the book “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” (published in 2004)
is chosen. John Perkins lifted the veil on a world rarely seen by most people. He
took us on a tour of the costs and consequences of American corporate hegemony,
dispelling myths of the „free market‟, and forcing us to peer deep into our own
souls. As Perkins states in his earlier works, "The world is as you dream it," so the
question is, “what will you dream?” This book is translated into Vietnamese by a
group of translators headed by Lê Đồng Tâm and has caught a great interest of
certain Vietnamese readers.
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi2
2. Purposes of the study
The study sets out to obtain the purposes as follows:
- To investigate the numerous functions of pragmatic markers in the ST as well as
the treatment of these markers in the TT.
- To study the dynamic equivalence between the original text and its translation.
- To suggest some implications for teaching and learning of English in general and
translation studies in particular.
3. Scope of the study
The study is focused on dynamic equivalence between “Confessions of an
Economic Hit Man” & its “Lời thú tội của một sát thủ kinh tế”. More specifically,
the study is confined to the relationship between pragmatic effect of pragmatic
markers valid for different receiver groups and habits of using these markers as
well as of choosing language style in different language pairs. The ground for the
investigation in this study is the notion of dynamic equivalence proposed by Nida
& Taber (1969), Koller (1989), Baker (1992), Newmark (1981), Hatim and
Mason (1990) and Monia Bayar (2007) and the conception of pragmatics and
pragmatic markers suggested by Levinson (1983), Richards J.C, Platt J & Platt H
(1992) and Fraser (1999)
4. Methodology
4.1. Research Questions
- What are pragmatic features of the source text and the receptors‟response to the
translation text?
- What are functions of pragmatic markers demonstrated in John Perkins‟s original
work? Are these markers treated equivalently in the translation text?
- To what extent are the original text and the translation pragmatically equivalent?3
4.2. Methods
On the one hand, this study will be conducted under the corpus-based analysis.
The aim of this method is to attempt to outline the existing territory occupied by a
new field of research in translation studies. The research techniques are gathering
quantitative data via a survey questionnaire and presenting the results through
statistics and tables. On the other hand, the qualitative method will be resorted to
as a supplementary one and not officially employed. It will Giúp understand the
meaning of the numbers produced by quantitative methods. Using quantitative
methods, it is possible to give precise and testable expression to qualitative ideas.
This combination of quantitative and qualitative data gathering is often referred to
as mixed-methods research.
4.3. Data collection procedures
To investigate the pragmatic equivalence between the original text “Confessions
of an Economic Hit Man” and its Vietnamese translation, the following steps will
be taken to collect data for the study:
- doing document analyses to build up a strong theoretical framework for the
study
- conducting a survey according to DCT method to identify and collect all
pragmatic markers explicit in the SL and TL texts.
In the DCT the discourse is structured so that part of it is left open and part
closed. A space is provided for subjects to supply speech act under investigation,
but the response is provided in order to cue the respondent as to the appropriate
nature of the speech act realization, i.e., the level of formality, and a description of
the roles and relationship of the interlocutors.
Also the DCT is an effective means of studying the stereotypical perceived
requirements for a socially appropriate response and is a good way to gain insight
into social and psychological factors that are likely to affect speech and
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi4
performance i.e. it avoids those very context specific constraints that influence
authentic data.
Cohen (1996, p.25) concludes that “discourse completion tests are
effective means of gathering a large amount of data quickly, creating an initial
classification of semantic formulas, and ascertaining the structure of speech act
under consideration.”
- holding discussions with colleagues in the field to investigate their
viewpoints and experience in translating pragmatic markers
4.4. Data Analysis
To facilitate the process of analyzing data, the inductive method has been
employed. Then, comparison and contrast between the original and its translation
are made as well as detailed analyses are carried out so that a conclusion on the
level of pragmatic equivalence between the original and translation can be
reached.
5. Design of the study
The study is composed of three main parts: the introduction, the
development and the conclusion.
The introduction states the rationale, purposes, scope, methodology and design of
the study.
The development consists of three chapters:
Chapter one: Theoretical background.
Chapter two: Pragmatic markers in the original text.
Chapter three: Treatments of pragmatic markers in the Vietnamese translation.
The conclusion summarizes the main points discussed in the previous parts and
puts forwards some implications for translation learning and practice.5
PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. What is pragmatics?
Some linguistics tend to take into consideration intensional definitions of
pragmatics which are: "the study of the relations of signs to interpreters" (Morris,
1938: 84); "the study of indexical rules for relating linguistic form to a given
context" (Bates, 1976: 3); "a theory that has as its subject matter the relationship
between a language, its subject matter, and the users of the language" (Martin,
1971 : 138); "the theory of the relation between the language users and the
language structure" (Apostel, 1971: 33); "the science of language use" (Haberland
and Mey, 1977: 1). Others deal with extensional definitions: "Pragmatics is the
study of deixis, implicature, presupposition, speech acts, and aspects of
discourse structure" (Levinson, 1983:27); "Pragmatics, for a natural language,
concerns 'illucutionary force', 'implicature', 'presupposition', and 'contextdependent
acceptability'" (Gazdar, 1979: 2).
Richards J.C, Platt J & Platt H (1992:284) regards Pragmatics as the study of the
use of language in communication, particularly the relationships between
sentences and the contexts and situations in which they are used. Pragmatics
includes the study of:
a. how the interpretation and use of UTTERANCES depend on knowledge of the
real world
b. how speakers use and understand SPEECH ACTS
c. how the structure of sentences is influenced by the relationship between the
speaker and the hearer.
1.2. Pragmatic markers
Pragmatic markers are polyfuntional cues that predicate changes in the speaker‟s
cognition, attitudes, and beliefs and facilitate the transmission of illocutionary
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi6
force and intentions. The speaker makes use of markers to segment, recover,
organize and reformulate the information provided to the hearer, but also to share
common ground, assumptions and presuppositions with him/her. Behind the use of
a particular marker, there are therefore not only ideational, rhetorical and
structural purposes, but a strong inferential component as well that is reflected in
certain parts of the pragmatic structure of the discourse.
Brinton (1996:33-5) provides an exhaustive list of basic features of pragmatic
markers that, although not fully manifested by all units that could be considered
pragmatic markers, suggest a range of properties that most markers display. One
of these features is that makers have little or no propositional meaning, which
might make us conclude that the presence of a device of such characteristics is
totally unnecessary in the message we are trying to convey. This is basically true
as far as informational value of the message, that is, a marker is not strictly
obligatory for the full understanding of a sentence or segment, but, as Schiffrin
suggests (1987:318), it is probably necessary to make the type of relationship
between preceding and following propositions explicit and clear. In a similar line
of argument, Fraser (1999:946) claims: “a marker reinforces a relationship
between segments by virtue of discourse marker meaning, while on the other hand,
the context, both linguistic and non-linguistic, elaborates and enriches the
relationship based on the details present”. The attempts to clarify the status of
markers have been varied (similar to the numerous labels attached to them).
However, although there seems to be a general agreement among scholars that
markers have a strong procedural meaning, that is, that they are key traces for the
right interpretation of a given piece of discourse, there is no consensus on the sort
of relationship that these units signal.
In this study we proposed four groups of pragmatic markers (Fraser,1999:946).
First, there are basic pragmatic markers, which specify more or less the potential7
force (type) of the basic message conveyed by the sentence: the message conveyed
with the propositional content of the sentence as the message content. Every
sentence has at least one basic pragmatic marker. This group includes sentence
mood (declarative, interrogative, and imperative structures) and lexical
expressions, for example, performative expressions such as I promise, I claim, and
I regret, and certain forms such as please and kindly. These markers are illustrated
by the examples in (3).
(3) a) I regret that he is still here. b) Admittedly, I was taken in. c) The cat is sick.
By virtue of the I regret in (3a) the speaker is conveying an expression of regret
(more accurately, the sentence has the potential when uttered of conveying an
expression of regret). While in sentence (3b) the speaker is conveying an
admission. Sentence (3c) has no lexical basic pragmatic marker, as do the first
two, but its declarative mood signals that the speaker is expressing belief (a claim,
an admission, a report) towards the state of the world expressed by the
propositional content.
Second, there are commentary pragmatic markers, which signal an entire message
which provides a comment on the direct basic message. These markers are
optionally present but when they do occur, their message is typically very general,
with a single word often signaling both the message force and content. Obviously,
they constitute pragmatic idioms. The sentences in (4) illustrate this type of
marker.
(4) a) Stupidly, Sara didn‟t fax the correct form.
b) I‟m not an expert, but shouldn‟t we be there by now.
In (4a), the basic message is (arguably) a report that Sara didn‟t fax the correct
form, while the commentary message, signaled by stupidly, is that the speaker
believes Sara‟s failure to act to have been stupid. In (4b), the I’m not an expert,
but signals that the basic message which follows is, in the speaker‟s opinion, not
going to be well received by the addressee and the speaker is trying to reduce the
face loss involved.
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi8
Third, there are parallel pragmatic markers, also optional, which signal an entire
message separate from the basic and any commentary messages. The sentences in
(5) are illustrative of parallel markers.
(5) a) John, take off your dirty shoes. b) In God‟s name, what are you doing now?
In (5a), in addition to the basic message of a directive that John take off his dirty
shoes, the speaker is conveying a message, signaled by John, that it is John who is
being addressed. In (5b), in God’s name signals exasperation on the part of the
speaker which may or may not be related to the hearer‟s activities.
Finally, there are discourse pragmatic markers, again optional, which signal a
message specifying how the basic message is related to the foregoing discourse
context. The sentences in (6) illustrate these markers.
(6) a) Jacob was very tired. So, he left early.
b) Martha‟s party is tomorrow. Incidentally, when is your party?
Here, in (6a), the so signals that the speaker views the report that he left early
should be treated as a conclusion based on the message conveyed by the preceding
sentence, while in (6b) the incidentally signals that the following basic message
should be treated as a shift in topic.
To summarize, a basic marker signals the force of the basic message, a
commentary marker signals a message which comments on the basic message, a
parallel marker signals a message in addition to the basic message, and a discourse
marker signals the relationship of the basic message to the foregoing discourse.
This may be shown schematically in (7).
(7) Discourse Phần mềm (Parallel Phần mềm (Commentary Phần mềm (Basic Phần mềm (Propositional
Content)))).
Although it is rare to find all four types of pragmatic markers in a single sentence,
it does occur
(8) I appreciate that you are a member of the Police Benevolent Association and a
supporter of the baseball league. However, frankly Sir, 1 estimate that you were
going a bit more than 86 miles per hour.9
In the similar line, the proposal here presented (Gonzalez, 2004) builds upon
Redeker‟s (1990) discourse coherence model and following classification of
markers according to the model. First, markers found in the ideational structure
are considered those that set up logico-semantic argumentative relations (of cause,
reason, result, concession, contrast, time, etc.). They have descriptive or lexical
meaning and have been traditionally called in the literature argumentative
connectors. Lexical units that fully fall under this category (units such as therefore,
in contrast, on the other hand, nevertheless, because, etc.) will therefore be
excluded from this study and only markers whose functions fall under the
rhetorical, sequential and inferential components will be considered and discussed.
Markers whose main functions are rhetorical signal the speaker‟s intentions and
goals and basically convey the illocutionary force of the story. Markers found in
the sequential structure delimit segments boundaries and sustain the discourse
network; they highly facilitate the in-and-out shift of the narrative segments. In the
case of markers that have dominant inferential role, the link that is set up between
the cognitive domain of the speaker and hearer is fundamental to understand and
grasp the point of the story.
1.3. What is Equivalence in Translation?
• It is the relationship between a source text (ST) and a target text (TT) that allows
the TT to be considered as a translation of the ST.
• Any relation characterizing translation under a specified set of circumstances.
Equivalence is relative and not absolute, it emerges from the context of situation
by the interplay of (many different factors) and has no existence outside that
context, and in particular it is not stipulated in advance by an algorithm for the
conversion of linguistic units of L1 into linguistic units of L2” (House, 1977)
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi10
1.4. Pragmatic equivalence: (Nida (1964) calls it “dynamic equivalence”).
The pragmatic level is generally concerned with language that is tied to social
context in a different way. Pragmatics is the study of language used in a specific
social context 'do things' rather than 'say things'. Language used in this way will
often have a force that goes against what seems to be its literal meaning. The SL
and TL words have the same effect on the reader or mainly aiming at the receiver,
to whom the translation is directed.
In extreme cases, where linguistic and cultural materials are inextricably blended,
no very close equivalent is available. In these cases, the translator needs to seek a
solution, probably situated on a different linguistic level compared with the SL, in
order to produce an effect on the reader of the TT that should be as close as
possible to that produced on the reader of the ST.
Contexts of use match in this case, and so does the effect on the TT reader that
will here be sufficiently close to that experienced by the ST reader. To achieve
similarities of effect and cater for reader expectations is to attain full pragmatic or
dynamic equivalence.
The aim of this discussion is to shed as much as possible light on readers. The
readership is a group of readers that the text is aimed at with such following
features as: the level of education, the class and age and sex (if marked).
There is a tendency to make the translation for educated, middle-class readership
in an informal, colloquial style. There are three types of readership: expert,
educated layman and the uninformed.
However, the more cultural (the more local, the more remote in time and in space)
a text is, the less equivalent effect even conceivable unless the reader is
imaginative, sensitive and stepped in the SL culture.
Koller’s (1989) categories establish a descriptive framework which involves
various types of equivalence, among which are: denotative, connotative, textnormative, pragmatic and formal equivalence.11
According to Koller, pragmatic equivalence, which is synonymous with Nida‟s
dynamic equivalence (Kenny 1998b:77), “means translating the text for a
particular readership” (Koller 1989:103). The expectations of the target readers
have to be considered. It is also called “communicative equivalence”.
This utterance “Hi, how are you?” shows an illocutionary meaning of greeting in
English-speaking countries.
Pragmatic equivalence (Baker:1992) is considered the most complicated level of
equivalence, which requires the translator to understand the underlining message
of the ST. Pragmatic equivalence is associated with implicatures and strategies of
avoidance during the translation process. She claims that the translator needs to
work out implications of the ST in order to get the ST message across. The role
of the translator is to recreate the author‟s intention in another culture in such a
way that Giúp the audience in the target culture understand it clearly.
Texts which may have implicatures can be poems, songs, idioms, literature or
texts involving much culture-specific understanding.
Baker‟s concept well matches the definition of pragmatics by Levinson.
It should also be noted that Newmark's distinction between 'communicative
translation' and 'semantic translation' in his book Approaches to Translation
(1981) is similar to Nida's types of equivalence. For 'communicative translation',
which tends to create the same effects on the reader of the TT as those obtained by
readers of the ST, resembles Nida's notion of dynamic equivalence, whereas,
'semantic translation', which focuses on the rendition of the contextual meaning of
the ST according to the syntactic and the semantic characteristics of the TT, is
similar to Nida's formal equivalence.
However, many critics of the 'equivalent effect' by Newmark come in his Textbook
of Translation (1988). Newmark sees Nida's 'equivalent effect' as: The desirable
result, rather than the aim of any translation. It is an unlikely result in two cases:
(a) if the purpose of the SL text is to affect and the TL translation is to inform (or
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi12
vice versa); (b) if there is a pronounced cultural gap between the SL and the TL
texts.
We infer from this quotation that the 'equivalent effect' is a result which all
translators long to achieve. However, this result can be unachievable if the ST and
the TT do not share the same goal; i.e., to inform or to affect, or if they do not
have the same cultural equivalents. The possession of cultural references, together
with the remoteness in time and space reduce the possibility of achieving
'equivalent effects', except in case the reader is imaginative, sensitive and has a
good knowledge of the SL culture.
According to Levinson‟s notion of pragmatics, we realize Newmark referred
pragmatic equivalence to the same purpose of the both texts (corresponding to the
primary text‟s implicature& presupposition) and cultural contexts (affecting
directly communicative effect in terms of deixis as well as aspects of discourse
structure).
Additionally, the development in equivalence research is also characterized by the
work of the Syrian theorist Monia Bayar (2007). In her book To Mean Or Not To
Mean, Bayar distinguishes between formal equivalence, semantic equivalence,
cultural equivalence and pragmatic equivalence. As far as 'pragmatic equivalence'
is concerned, Bayar (2007) points out that this type tends to reproduce the context
and text goals of the SL. She also shares the same idea with Hatim and Mason
(1990: 236-8) that "pragmatic equivalence subsumes all of the semio-pragmaticcommunicative layers of communication." Examples of these semiotic and
communicative dimensions are genre, field, mode, tenor, text type and translation
purpose.
Nida and Taber: Formal Equivalence and dynamic Equivalence
In his work on Bible translation, Nida concentrates on studying meaning in both
its semantic and pragmatic natures. He breaks with the old stories, which regard
meanings of words as fixed and unchanged, to give meaning a more functional13
nature. For him, words get their meanings according to the context and can be
changed through the culture in which they are used.
Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal
equivalence—which in the third edition by Nida and Taber (1982) is referred to as
formal correspondence—and dynamic equivalence. Formal correspondence
'focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content', unlike dynamic
equivalence which is based upon 'the principle of equivalent effect' (1964:159).
Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the closest
equivalent of a SL word or phrase. Nida and Taber make it clear that there are not
always formal equivalents between language pairs. They therefore suggest that
these formal equivalents should be used wherever possible if the translation aims
at achieving formal rather than dynamic equivalence. The use of formal
equivalents might at times have serious implications in the TT since the translation
will not be easily understood by the target audience (Fawcett, 1997). Nida and
Taber themselves assert that 'Typically, formal correspondence distorts the
grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the
message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard'.
Concerning dynamic equivalence, Nida mentions that this type is based on "the
principle of equivalent effect", in which "the relationship between receptor and
message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the
original receptor and the message." Dynamic equivalence is defined as a
translation principle according to which a translator seeks to translate the meaning
of the original in such a way that the TL wording will trigger the same impact on
the TC audience as the original wording did upon the ST audience. They argue
that 'Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change
follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual
consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the
message is preserved and the translation is faithful'.
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi14
One can easily see that Nida is in favour of the application of dynamic
equivalence, as a more effective translation procedure. This is perfectly
understandable if we take into account the context of the situation in which Nida
was dealing with the translation phenomenon, that is to say, his translation of the
Bible. Thus, the product of the translation process, that is the text in the TL, must
have the same impact on the different readers it was addressing. Only in Nida and
Taber's edition is it clearly stated that 'dynamic equivalence in translation is far
more than mere correct communication of information'.
Despite using a linguistic approach to translation, Nida is much more interested in
the message of the text or, in other words, in its semantic quality. He therefore
strives to make sure that this message remains clear in the target text.
Nida & Taber‟s conception is in line with aspects of language studied in
pragmatics.
In brief, it is clear from the above diversifying views and theories that the notion
of pragmatic equivalence is arbitrary and relative as well. It is, in fact, difficult to
determine since no one could objectively define the point at which the TT
becomes equal to the ST. Thus, to be moderate as much as possible, we will not
define pragmatic equivalence as a point of translation proficiency or reject its
existence in translation as some wished.
1.5. E. A. Nida’s response-based approach on Translation Quality Assessment
Before Nida, most scholars writing about translation applied a particular linguistic
approach to the topic, taking translation to be a type of applied linguistics. But
Nida‟s concern centered on a systematic approach to translation. He saw in
linguistics the necessary tools of analysis, and he drew on what at the time was a
new science to develop an overall approach to transla
2. "Oh, I've been around too," he said
mockingly. (I,5,31) => initiating
utterances and relating them to the
foregoing interaction.
“Ồ, tui cũ ng đã đi rấ t nhiề u nơi” , ông ta
nói một cách chế giễu. (I,5,44)
3. "He just shrugged." Our eyes met.
"Oh, Paula, I detest myself for playing
this role ." (III,22,125)
“Anh ta chỉ nhú n vai” , tui bắ t gặ p á nh
mắ t củ a Paula. “Ôi, Paula, anh căm ghé t
chính bản thân mình trong cái vai trò
này”. (III,22,176)
Table 11 Treatment of Closing segment boundary marker
ST TT
1. "Speaking of oil," he said. He took
another puff on his cigar and flipped
past a couple of the note cards. "We all
know how dependent our own country
is on oil. Indonesia can be a powerful
ally to us in that regard. So, as you
develop this master plan, please do
everything you can to make sure that
the oil industry and all the others that
serve it—ports, pipelines, construction
companies—get whatever they are
likely to need in the way of electricity
for the entire duration of this twentyfive-year plan ." (I,4,25)
“Tấ t cả chú ng ta đề u biế t đấ t nướ c củ a
chúng ta phụ thuộc vào dầu mỏ đến
mứ c nà o . Xét về khía cạnh đó ,
Inđônêxia có thể là mộ t đồ ng minh
hùng mạnh của chúng ta. Vì thế, khi cá c
bạn dựng bả n qui hoạ ch tổ ng thể
này,…”(I,4,36)
2. “…All of us will put our heads
together then. So, before we leave we
gotta be absolutely certain we have all
the information we'll need….” (I,5,29)
“…Tấ t cả chú ng ta sẽ phả i cù ng bà n bạ c
vớ i nhau. Vậ y là, trướ c khi rờ i khỏ i đây
chúng ta phải hoàn toàn chắc rằng
chúng ta đã có đầy đủ tất cả các thông
tin cầ n thiế t… .”.(I,5,42)
3. "Now the other side," Fidel said .
"I've got official papers and you're a
U.S. citizen, so we can go." (II,11,65)
“Bây giờ là mặ t kia củ a bứ c tranh” ,
Fidel nó i vớ i tui : “tui đã xin đượ c giấ y
tờ chí nh thứ c và anh là công đân Mỹ
nên chúng ta có thể đi.” (II,11,89)
4. "I was one." He shook his head,
seemed lost in thought. We sat in
silence for a few minutes before he
spoke again. "I do not like beggaring.
My child dies. So I raise poppies."
x(IV,32,193)
“tui đã từ ng là mộ t trong số đó .” Anh
ta lắ c lắ c đầ u , dườ ng như đang chì m
trong suy nghĩ . Chúng tui ngồi yên lặng
mộ t lá t rồ i bỗ ng anh lạ i nó i : “tui không
thích phải đi ăn mày . Con tui sắ p chế t .
Vậ y nên tui phải trồng cây anh túc .”
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phiviii
(IV,32,271)
5. "Quite simple. He is your only real
ally in the Middle East, and the
industrial world rotates on the axle of
oil that is the Middle East. Oh, you have
Israel, of course, but that's actually a
liability to you, not an asset. And no oil
there. Your politicians must placate the
Jewish vote, must get their money to
finance campaigns. So you're stuck with
Israel, I'm afraid. However, Iran is the
key. Your oil companies — which carry
even more power than the Jews — need
us. You need our shah—or you think
you do, just as you thought you needed
South Vietnam's corrupt leaders."
(III,19,115)
“Đơn giả n thôi , ông ta thự c sự là đồ ng
minh duy nhấ t củ a cá c ông ở Trung
Đông nà y. Mà thế giới công nghiệp lại
đang quay quanh trụ c dầ u lử a là Trung
Đông. Tấ t nhiên cá c ông cò n có đồ ng
minh là Ixaren , nhưng thự c chấ t đó là
mộ t mó n nợ chứ không phả i là tà i sả n
của các ông . Và ở Ixaren lại chẳng có
dầ u. Các chính trị gia nước ông sẽ phải
xoa dị u cá c cử tri Do Thá i , phải dùng
tiề n củ a họ để tà i trợ cho cá c chiế n dị ch
của mình. Vì thế, tui e là vớ i Ixaren, các
ông đang bị mắ c kẹ t . Tuy nhiên , Iran
chính là chìa khóa giúp các ông giải
quyế t vấ n đề nà y . Nhữ ng công ty dầ u
lử a củ a cá c ông - nhữ ng công ty đang
nắ m giữ thậ m chí nhiề u quyề n lự c hơn
cả người Do Thái - cầ n chú ng tui . Các
ông cầ n , hoặ c í t nhấ t là cá c ông nghĩ
rằ ng mì nh cầ n Quố c vương . Giố ng như
khi cá c ông nghĩ mì nh cầ n nhữ ng nhà
lãnh đạo tham nhũng”. (III,19,159)
Table 12 Treatment of Contextual Constrainer
ST TT
"We must windows the Indonesians over. If
they join the Communist bloc, well. . ."
She drew a finger across her throat and
then smiled sweetly. (I, 2, 16)
“Chú ng ta phả i lôi ké o ngườ i dân
Inđônêxia về phí a mì nh . Chà, họ mà
không theo chú ng ta thì ...” cô ta đưa
ngón trỏ lên vạch ngang qua cổ và mỉ m
cườ i ngọ t ngà o. (I, 2, 23)
Table 13 Treatment of Monitoring Marker
ST TT
1. "You see, it is the same here," he
said. "The desert is our environment.
The Flowering Desert project threatens
nothing less than the destruction of our
entire fabric. How can we allow this to
happen?" (III,18,111)
“Anh thấ y đấ y , tình hình ở đây cũng y
như vậ y” , ông ta nó i . “Sa mạ c là môi
trườ ng củ a chú ng tui . Dự á n Sa mạ c nở
hoa đe dọ a phá hủ y toà n bộ nề n văn hó a
của chúng tôi. Làm sao chúng tô i có thể
để điều đó xảy ra được chứ ?”
(III,18,154)
2. "You see, this man who calls himself
the King of Kings is in reality satanic.
Ông thấ y đây , kẻ luôn tự xưng mình là
Vua của các vị Vua thực chất là mộtix
His father was deposed by your CIA
with — I hate to say it — my help,
because he was said to be a Nazi
collaborator. And then there was the
Mossadegh calamity. Today, our shah is
on the route to surpassing Hitler in the
realms of evil. He does this with the full
knowledge and support of your
government." (III,19,114;115)
con quỷ Satăng . CIA củ a cá c ông đã
phế truấ t cha ông ta , và dù rất ghét khi
phải nói ra , nhưng việ c nà y đượ c thự c
hiệ n vớ i sự giú p đỡ củ a tui . Vì cha ông
ta bị coi là đồ ng minh củ a phá t xí t. Và
sau đó là thả m họ a Mossadegh . Ngày
nay, Quố c vương củ a chú ng tui cò n
vượ t xa cả Hitle trong cá i thế giớ i củ a
quỷ dữ . Chính phủ các ông biết rõ ông
ta là m nhữ ng điề u nà y và hoà n toà n ủ ng
hộ ”. (III,19,158;159)
Do Drive thay đổi chính sách, nên một số link cũ yêu cầu duyệt download. các bạn chỉ cần làm theo hướng dẫn.
Password giải nén nếu cần: ket-noi.com | Bấm trực tiếp vào Link để tải:
You must be registered for see links
Tags: tương đương ngữ dụng
Last edited by a moderator: