Textual Pragmatics and Equivalence: Lecturer: Yulan Puspita Rini, M.A
Textual Pragmatics and Equivalence: Lecturer: Yulan Puspita Rini, M.A
Textual Pragmatics and Equivalence: Lecturer: Yulan Puspita Rini, M.A
Lecturer :
Class 4B
Group 7
Praise our thanks to Allah swt. who has given us His mercy and guidance, so we can make this
paper about textual pragmatics and equivalence well, and do not forget to say our thanks to:
• Ms. Yulan Puspita Rini, M.A as the lecturer of the course who has given us the guidance,
the compiler of this paper.
• Friends who give support and enthusiasm.
With this paper, we hope that it will be useful for the readers. By not reducing respect to our readers
as compilers expecting constructive criticism and suggestion from the readers, for the more
complete perfection of this paper we compile.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER .................................................................................................................i
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
1.3 Purposes
1. To understand what the textual pragmatics and equivalence.
2. To understand what the category textual pragmatics and equivalence.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE of THEORY
Pragmatics Equivalence refers to words in both languages having the same effect on the readers in
both languages.
While translation no doubt shares a number of significant feature with a range of other text-
processing activities that proceed from a source to derived text (summarizing, explaining),
mainstream translation theory suggests that fundamental differences exit between translation and
these other activities. But the question that has not yet been answered satisfactorily is : what
preconditions must be met for a text to be classified as translation proper? Koller proposes the
following working definition of what he take to be translation :
Between the resultant text in L2(the TL text) and the ST in L1 (the S1 text) there exist a
relationship which can be designated as a translational, or equivalence, relation.
Note that ‘translational’ can be glossed as strictly pertaining to translation (as opposed to say,
original writing) and may thus be seen in term of an equivalence relation that is different from the
kind of relations obtaining under such conditions as ‘deriving texts’ in summaries or ‘explaining’
in a dictionary entry. We are still not told what ‘equivalence’ is, but it is clear that translations are
produced under conditions different from those obtaining freer form of witting. The translator
confronts and resolves a number a number of problems not likely to future in original writing, and
vice versa. In translations, these limitations have a great deal to do with the the need to reconcile
differences in linguistic code, cultural values, the ‘world’ and how it is perceived, style and
ecstheitics,etc.
In trying to work out a notion of equivalence that steers clear if either extreme the narrowly
quantitative approach vs the open-ended text-and-beyond view Koller (1979) maintains a
distinction between formal similarity at the level of virtual language system (langue), and
equvalence relations obtaining between texts in real time at the actual level of parole, a distinction
web examined ini relation to Catford in Unit 4.
Koller advocates that it is the latter, parole –oriented notion of equivalence ( which the Germans
call Aquivalenze) that constitutes the real object of enquiry in Translation Studies. Textual
equivalence proper may thus be seen as obtaining not between the languages themselves at the
level of the linguistics system but between real texts at the level of text in context (see again the
discussion in Unit 4).
One way kf reconcilling the two extremes of langue-vs parole – oriented approaches to translation
is to define equivalence in relative (not categorical) terms and in bierarchical ( not static ) terms.
That is, equivalence is not an ‘either/or' choice, nor is it an ‘if X, then Y formula. Translation
approaches informed by pragmatics as the study of intended meaning are ideally suited for this
dynamic view of equivalence, and the model of equivalnce proposed by Koller is an excellent
example of an approach that is varible and flexible in accounting for relationships between
comprable elements in the SL and TL.
Within the equivalence model to be outlined in this section, the scope of what cinstitutes an
equivalence relation is limited in a number of important ways. Koller (1995) views equivalence
as a process constraind on the one hand by the influence of a variety of potentially conflicting
SL/TL linguistic textual and extra-textual factors and circumstances and on the other by the role
of the historical-cultural conditions under which texts and their translations are producted and
received.
EXAMPLE
‘I had wanted for years to get Mrs. Teacher in front of my camera. As she got more powerful she
got sort of sexier’
DECISION-MAKING
You will probably discover that in dealing with the medical instructions, levels 3,4 and 5 would
be taken care of by merely attending to levels I and 2. In the case of the commercial, however,
levels 1,2 and 3 are likely to be insufficient by themselves and, to do justice to the text, you would
need to engage more closely witlh equivalence relations at levels 4 and5.
Achieving equivalence, then, involves a complex decision-making process which the Leipzig-
based translation theorist Jiri Levý (1967) defined in terms of moves as in a game of chess, and
choices to make from several alternatives. In doing any kind of translation, there will always be a
problem, and a number of possible solutions At every stage of the translation process, choices are
made, and these obviously influence subsequent choices. At one level, this may be illustrated by
Koller's typology of equivalence relations, with the translator opting for one kind of equivalence
framework, then eliminating this option if it proves unworkable and trying out the next higher-
level frame of reference.
Like all matters to do with text in context, however, translation decisions are rarel if ever so
straightforward and 'sequential: They tend to be highly complex and, as Koller intended his
relational frameworks to be, 'hierarchical: The hierarchy in fact iterative in the sense that one
progresses through the text, one can come back again and again to decisions already taken,
reviewing and altering themi. An important question now is: What motivates this kind of decision-
making?
WHAT MOTIVATES TRANSLATOR DECSION MAKING
1. Aesthetics
This hierarclical, iterative nature of decision-making (i.c. how decisions can Le reviewed
up and down the hierarchy, which ecisions are overriding and whih are minor, etc.) is eften
driven by a number of fairly subjective facters such as the trauslators own 'aesthetic
standards' (Levý 1967).
2. Cognition and knowledge
A factor that is less subjective than aesthetics is the translator’s own socio-cognitive system
(the translator’s culture and system of values, beliefs, etc.). this important role in informing
translation decisions and thus confirming the hierarhucal-itcrative and relative nature of
equivalence relations.
3. Commission
In addition to esthetics, cognition and :he criterion of knowledge base, the task specificaticn
agreed with cllents could drastically influence decision-making. This raises issues of
translation skopos or purpose, loyalty and conflict of interests, etc. we can now refer to this
sensc of purpose specifically as ‘the purpose of the translation’. and distinguish it from the
purpose of translation (in the collective), which has to do with the skill involved in
translating within a particular professional setting (e.g.subtitling).
TEXTUAL PRAGMATICS
By far the most concrete set of criteria for effective decision-making seems to be grounded in text
type. Linguist and translation theorist Robert de Beaugrande sees equivalence relations in terms of
the translation generally being a valid representative of the original in the communicative act in
question (1978: 88). The decision-making involved would thus be partly subject to system criteria
such as grammar and diction, and partly to contextual factors surrounding the use of language in a
given text (see languevs parole on p. 49)
Example
NEWSWEEK : it is a bid [sic] odd, isn’t it, that a journalist who was held captive by the Taliban
would, several months later, be converting to Islam?
In this example, there is a typo (bid' for 'bit'), a minor performance error which can be rectified easily.
But what about isn’t it? Pragmatically, this feature suggests ‘surely’, another sesture problem concept
for many users of English as a foreign language. To reader is't it? into Aabic, for example. We need to
gloss it by something like i am sure you will agree. Similarly, we need to complement you coudln't make
it up by something like 'even if you wanted to’.These pragmatic glosses are indispensable in any
meaningful resdering of the above utterances, certainly into Arabic.
These considerations can only highlight the proposition, which we saw in Unit 3, that it is not the word
which is the unit of translation but rather text in com- munication' (Beaugrande 1978:91).This is a
contentious issue, and one that has often been misunderstood. Fawcett sheds some useful light on the
psychological reality to ‘text'as a unit of translation :
What professional and even novice translators actually do is relate the translation of the microlevel
of words and phrases to higher textual levels of sentence and paragraph, and beyond that to such
parameters as register genre, text conventions, subject matter, and so on.
(Fawcett 1997:64)
b. Subtitution
Subtitution is an item (or items) is replaced by another item (or items)..
c. Ellipsis
In ellipsis, an item is replaced by nothing.
d. Conjunction
Conjunction involves the use of formal markers to relate sentences, clause and
paragraph.
e. Lexical Cohesion
Lexical cohesion refers to the role played by the selection of vocabulary in organizing
relations within a text. Types of lexical cohesion are reiteration (repetition, synonym or
near-synonym, superordinate and general word) and collocation.
a) Coherence
b) Implicature
Maxim of relation . Maxim of relation or maxim of relevance means the utterance must
be relevant with the topic that being discussed.
CHAPTER III
CLOSING
2.2 Conclusion
In conclusion, Useful as the textual approach may generally be in clarifying the kinds of
resemblance that are deemed appropriate, it is not yet clear what kind of constraints there are for
determining what types of resemblance between original text and translation are most crucial, in
what kinds of text, for what kind of reader and so on.
The question that is uppermost in the mind of the ST author or the translator must be: is it worth
the target reader's effort to invest in the retrieval of something which would normally be opaque
and therefore not straightforward to retrieve (a meaning a nuance, an implication, a subtle hint,
etc.)? This effort and reward is regulated by what Levy (1967) called the Minimax Priiciple: during
the decision-making process, thc translator opts for that solution which yields mazimum effect for
minimum effort.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hatim basil,Jeremi munday.2004.Translation an advance resource
book.NewYork.Routledgetaylor and Francis Group