J. C. CATFORD. LANGUAGE. LANGUAGE. LEARNING. A Linguistic. Theory of Translation Oxford University Press, First published TRANSLATION is an activity of enormous importance in the mod- ern world and it is a subject. A linguistic theory of translation: an essay in applied linguistics. Front Cover. John Cunnison Catford. Oxford University Press, – Language Arts & Disciplines – pages. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Front Cover. John Cunnison Catford. Oxford University Press, – Linguistic research.
|Published (Last):||18 April 2012|
|PDF File Size:||5.26 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.30 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Moreover, certain letters represent syllables beginning with consonants which alternate between a stop and a. SPUTNIK In transliteration, SL graphological units are replaced by TL graphological units; but these are not translation equivalents, since they are not selected on the basis of relationship to the same graphic substance. In particular, however, I should like to thank Dr M. But sequence is relevant in English and we therefore count it as a feature of the structure, and say that, in this respect, too, structure-shift occurs in the translation.
For example, in a French short story of about 12, words the preposition dans occurs times. We will give only two further illustrations at this point. Occasional use is, however, made of single and double vertical lines, as in 1. They form a scale of units at different ranks. If we a dd4icu: Now this untranslatable association of crepitement is a good example of one of the types of linguistic untranslatability referred to in Catford A Linguistic Theory of Translation This is an important work which brings a new degree of precision into the analysis of what is involved in translation from one language to another.
More extended examples will make this point even clearer. The fact that each of these tone-groups is a carrier of a meaningful pattern is shown by the possibility of occurrence of units of a similar type which differ only in that the pitch-pattern which they carry is meaningfully different, thus: In this case only one of these must be chosen as basis for transliteration: We stated in 1.
A Linguistic Theory Of Translation Oxford Univ. Press ( 1965)
John the Baptist, people who live in glass houses, etc. Sentence-structures which occur are a, [3, a [3, 3oc. Ashet and outwith are characteristically Scottish — they occur in texts written or spoken by Scotsmen.
We may repeat this process for any portion of the full text — asking, for instance, for the French equivalent of 1 It should be noted that this, and almost all other examples in this paper, are decontextualized texts: Persons writing in a foreign language may occasionally pro- duce graphological translations; for example, Greeks writing in English or in Roman in general often replace a script a by a, or an n by 7.
In Russian, the contextually marked term in the system is the perfective ; this explicitly refers to the uniqueness or completion of the event. The present writer, however, takes full responsibility for the brief and, indeed, oversimplified sketch of linguistic theory given here, which differs from that of Halliday chiefly in its treatment of levels 1,2. Starting from v the assumption that any process concerned with human language can be illuminated by applying to it the latest insights into the nature of language, the author outlines a current British frame-work of descriptive linguistics and applies it to the analysis of translation.
In the Russian text, therefore, there is no translation equivalent of the English indefinite article. For instance, in a novel, idiolectal features in the dialogue of one character may be worked into the plot; other characters may remark on these, and they may partly serve to identify the character. These two examples in fact illustrate two different types of translation-shift; in A, there is structure-shift; in B, there is unit- shift, since in this case the Gaelic equivalent of a feature at clause-rank is the selection of a particular term in a system operating at group rank.
We may take as an example a small sub- system of phonemes, labial stops in English and Sindhi. A formal correspondent, on the other hand, is any TL category unit, class, structure, element of structure, etc.
There are certainly overlaps in collocational range— thus we may have a whole roast sheep and we might have fat sheep as well as mutton fat, but on the whole they have different collocational ranges, and this establishes the fact that they belong to different lexical sets and are different lexical items. The form can’t may also occur in written texts, but it differs from cannot in that it correlates with situations in which there is a greater degree of familiarity between the writer and his reader s.
Clearly, then, embedded in an Linhuistic TL text, or, now, simply in an English text, sputnik has an English formal and contextual meaning. But cases of ambiguity can arise, an example is Time flies. Linugistic is largely an illusion. By co-text we mean items in the text which accompany the item under discussion: Having observed each particular textual equivalent, we can then make a general statement of textual equivalences for each SL item, covering all its occurrences in the text as a whole.
The relations entered into by the formal linguistic units of grammar and lexis are of two kinds i formal relations, ii contextual relations. Thus, as mentioned in 2. Category-shifts are departures from formal correspondence in translation. In contrast with this, normal total translation in which equivalences shift freely up and down the rank scale may be termed catforr translation.
For translation equivalence to occur, SL and TL items must be relatable to at least some of the same features of substance, and it is easy to see that there is translatlon absolute absence of similarity between phonic and graphic substance, and between either of these and situation substance. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: We use the term intra-system shift for those cases where the shift occurs internally, within a system; that is, for those cases where SL and TL possess systems which approximately corres- pond formally as to their constitution, but when translation involves selection of a non-corresponding term in the TL system.
The entire phenomenon is documented in an extensive bibliography of literary translations of the period, the most comprehensive ever compiled. Thus, if we are going to attribute any structure at all to English nominal groups we must set up three elements: Translation is shown to be a much more complex matter than is commonly realized, while at the same time the author indicates important new ways of approaching it.
Such differences are, of course, the rule theiry than the exception, since formal corres- pondence is exceedingly rare— but formal differences between languages do not normally preclude the finding of translation equivalents. Nothing, or almost nothing.
A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics – J. C. Catford – Google Books
Love Wine In the following table we give the translation-equivalents of French articles found in French texts with English translations. It may also be a fragment not co-extensive with any formal literary or linguistic unit. Thus, for example, the traditional transliteration of Sanskrit is into Roman letters — but it is not, strictly, into Latin graphology, for the Roman alphabet has to be supplemented by a number of diacritics to correspond to letter-distinctions in Skt.
Very often, these alternants, the terms in a system, are 1695 members of a class: The primary classes of clause are free operating as exponent of a in sentence-structure and bound operating as exponent of 3 in sentence-structure. linguustic
J d a linguistic theory of translation PDF | Damian Grzech –
For typographic reasons some slight transcriptional alterations have been made here. The markers of particular varieties may be at any level: There is, however, an important difference between the two aspect systems, namely that the polarity of marking is not the same.
General Linguistics is, primarily, a theory about how languages work. In all these cases, the phonological feature English tonicity, Javanese vowel-lengthening is merely the exponent of a grammatical category; it is this grammatical category not its phonological exponent which has a grammatical equivalent in the TL.