Sunteți pe pagina 1din 13

TEXTUAL PRAGMATICS AND EQUIVALENCE

Lecturer :

Yulan Puspita Rini, M.A

Class 4B

Group 7

Dea Karin Pradipta 1711040035

Eka Nursita Dewi 1711040046

Ulfi Fatihatur Rosidah 1711040263

TARBIYAH AND TEACHER TRAINING FACULTY

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

UIN RADEN INTAN LAMPUNG

ACADEMIC YEAR 2019


PREFACE

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................... .ii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of The Problem ......................................................... .1

1.2 Identification of The Problem ....................................................... .1

1.3 Purpose ......................................................................................... .1

CHAPTER II LITERATURE OF THEORY

2.1 Definition of textual pragmatics and equivalence ......................... .


2.2 Types of textual pragmatics and equivalence ............................... .

CHAPTER III CLOSING

3.1 Conclusion .................................................................................... .


BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................
CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Problem

Nowadays, especially in globalization era, communication in many languages is very


important. And of course, the method of communication is needed to apply the communication.
But because of there are so many languages in all over the world, the communication become
problem for them. The only solution of the problem in different language is through translation.
“Translation is basically changing a text from SL into TL” Larson (1984) In this paper, the writer
will discuss of translation in Source Language (in English) into Target Language (in Bahasa
Indonesia). When translating from the SL (in English) text into TL text (in Bahasa Indonesia), the
translator must know the rules of both languages. Because both have different structure, so textual
pragmatics and equivalence is needed. Translation theorists such as R. de Beaugrande ad W. koller
argued vigorously for a new focus on pragmatics in translation i.e., the study of the writer/speaker’s
intended meanings and the purposes for which utterances and texts are used. Here, form is not seen
as being more important than meaning, and the language system is not seen as more important than
the communicative context.

1.2 Identification of the Problem


1. What is translation textual pragmatics and equivalence ?
2. What is category textual pragmatics and equivalence?

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

2.1 Definition of Textual Pragmatics and Equivalence


1. What is equivalence exactly?
The dictionary defines equivalence as being the same, similar or interchangeable with
something else. In translation terms, equivalence is a term used to refer to the nature and
extent of the realitionships between SL and TL texts or smaller linguistic units.
2. What is Pragmatic Equivalence?

When reffering to implicatures and strategies of avoidance during the translation


process. Implicature is not about what is explicitly said but what is implied. Therefore,
the translator needs to work out implied meanings in translation 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 enables the TC reader to understand it clearly.

Pragmatics Equivalence refers to words in both languages having the same effect on the readers in
both languages.

Translation Properly Defined

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.

Langue-oriented vs parole-oriented equivalence

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.

Equivalence: double linkage

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’

(newsweek 21 May 2001 [bold in original])

1. Equivalence is said to be fully achieved if St and TL words happen to have similar


ortlographic or plionological features. This is tlhe ultimate formal equivalence, where a SL
form is strictiy replaced by an identical TL form. Focusing on sexier, we need a language
which deals with this item in the same way as many languages do with English words like
strategy bureaucracy (e.g. Arabic stratiijiyya . biirokratiyya). Obviously, this does not seen
to be possible in the case of sexy, which means that we have to move up one level in the
equivalence hierarchy.
2. When formai equivalence proves either unattainable or insufficient we tend to aim for the
next level of referential or denotative equivalence. Here, a SL form is replaced by a TL
form that basically refers to the same 'thing’. At face value, this is possible to achieve with
the majority of words in any language. The Newsweek translator can conceivably opt for
this level of equivalence in any language, with the relationship of'sex-sexy' highlighted.
3. For a varieiy of linguistic, rhetorical and cultural reasens, the refential option may not do
justice to sexy in the case of the Thatcher test. A denotative rendering may (as it certainly
does in the case of Arabic) convey something like ‘pornographic, if used on its own on
trigger different associations in the minds of speakers of the two languages. In such cases,
we should seek equivalence at the next higher level of ‘similarity of association’. This is
conotative equivalence, which in the case of sexy might yield a TT element which links
sexy,say,with ‘attractivecess’.
4. The connotative option goes some way towards a solution of the problem sexy in Arabic,
but still falls short of an optimally saticfactory rendering. In this language, the semantic
element 'attractiveness’ can convey asssociations with the physical term ‘gravity' that are
too ‘direct’ and 'scientific’ for this context. Here we should seek equivalence at the higher
level of textual context and aim for so-called text-normative equivalence. Textual norms
are conventions which go beyond connotations and which enable us to work with the kind
of language that is typical of a certain kind of text, a mood of writing, a certain attitude,etc.
To account for this level of equivalence in the case of sexy or ‘sexual attractiveness’, for
example, we need to bear in mind the commnictly purpose of the ST and the use for which
the TT is intended.
5. Contexs of use match in this case, and so does the effect on the TT reader which will here
be sufficiently close to that experienced by the STr eader. To achieve similarity of effect
and cater for reader expeciations is io attain full pragmatic or dynamic equivalence

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?

RIDLEY : I know, you couldn’t make it up, it is strange.


(Newsweek 26 August 2002 [Italies added])

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)

2.2 Types of Textual Pragmatics and Equivalence

1) Types of Textual Equivalence: Cohesion


There are five main cohesion devices in English according to Halliday and Hasan:
a. Reference
Reference is the relationship between a word and what it poits to in the real world.
 Personal Reference
This reference is by means of function in the speech situation, through the category
of person
 Demonstrative Reference
This reference is by means location, on a scale of proximity
 Comparative Reference
This reference is by means of identity or similarity.

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.

2) Types of Pragmatics Equivalence

a) Coherence

Coherence is mostly receiver-centred. It depends on ability of hearer/reader to interpret


information on the basis of his/her expectations and experience of the world.

b) Implicature

 Maxim of quality .Maxim of quality can be defined as truthful as required.

 Maxim of quantity.Maxim of quantity as one of cooperative principle concerned in


giving information as it is required and no more than it is required

 Maxim of manner .Maxim of manner, be clear, be brief and be orderly in giving


information.

 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.

Formal resemblance (whether in Nida's 'contextually motivated'sense or in Koller's identical form-


to-form relation) is a valid option; so is pragmatic resemblande (Nida's dynamic equivalence or
Koller's higher levels of equivalence). But can there be any reliable means for ascertaining the
precise form-content relationship in any coherent and useful way?

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

Sa’adah Kuni.2016. A translation analysis of textual and pragmatic equivalence in freedom


writers movie and its script. Skripsi. Fakultas Tarbiyah dan keguruan. IAIN Salatiga: Jawa
Tengah

S-ar putea să vă placă și