You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 14 (3514 words)
While the functional model for translation provided by House (1977,1997) is mainly based on Hallidayan systematic-functional theory, it also draws eclectically on Prague school ideas (functional style and functional sentence perspective, foregrounding etc.) speech act theory, pragmatics, discourse analysis and corpus based distinctions between spoken and written language…
"normal", non-linguistically trained persons think of translation as a text which is some sort of "reproduction" of a text originally produced in another language, with the "reproduction" being of comparable value. Over and above its role as a concept constitutive of translation, "equivalence" is also a fundamental notion for translation criticism. Translations must be conceived as texts, which are doubly bound: on the one hand to its source text and on the other hand to the (potential) recipient's communicative conditions. This double linkage nature is the basis of the so-called "equivalence relation". One of the aims of a theory of translation quality assessment is then to specify and operationalize the equivalence relation by differentiating between a numbers of frameworks of equivalence. For example, extra-linguistic circumstances, connotative and aesthetic values, audience design and last but not least textual and language norms of usage that have emerged from empirical investigations of parallel texts, contrastive rhetoric and contrastive pragmatic and discourse analyses.
The notion of equivalence is the conceptual basis of translation and, to quote Catford, "the central problem of translation-practice is that of finding TL (Target Language) equivalents. ...
Not exactly what you need?