- •1. Outline Comparative Stylistics as a science: object, subject, theory and practice.
- •3. Speak on the functional styles of the English and Ukrainian
- •6. Speak on the Stylistic analysis on the graphic level.
- •7. Specify syntactic stylistic devices.
- •15. Speak on word meaning: the problem of definition, referential and functional approaches to meaning.
- •16. Polysemy and homonymy
- •23. The category of Voice: passive voice in English and Ukrainian
- •26. Specifu the goals of translation.
- •27.Outline the functions of translation.
- •28. Speak on the objectives of the Theory of Translation.
- •29.Dwell on the earliest mentions of Translation.
- •29.Dwell on the earliest mentions of Translation.
- •29.Dwell on the earliest mentions of Translation.
- •30.Speak on translation and interpretation during the Middle Ages.
- •Germany- Albrecht von Eyb (translator of Plautu’s works),Heinrich Steinhowel (translator of Aesop’s and Boccaccio’s works)
- •32. Speak on translation during the period of Classicism and Enlightenment.
- •33.Speak on the epoch of Romanticism and Establishment of the principles of
- •34.Dwell on translation in Ukraine.
- •35. Specifu criteria for translation classification.
- •37.Dwell on genre classification of translation.
- •39.Specify equivalents in translation: the notion of equivalence.
- •4O.Elucidate formal vs. Dynamic equivalence.
- •4 1 .Elucidate referential vs. Functional equivalence.
- •43.Speak on differentiation of meaning.
- •44. Speak on generalization of meaning.
- •45. Speak on semantic development of meaning.
- •46. Speak on antonymic translation.
- •48.Elucidate basic translation devices.
39.Specify equivalents in translation: the notion of equivalence.
Equivalence – a measure of semantic similarity between the ST and the TT.
Equivalence the same linguistic content between 2 lexical units into 2 languages. There are three main types of equivalents: permanent/complete/linguistic/formal, regular/ incomplete/textual/semantic, and occasional/contextual/situational.
Two words are called permanent equivalents if their meanings exactly correspond and they may reciprocally substitute each other in any context. Therefore this is a rare case. Full equivalents, which are mostly monosemantic words, can be found among antroponyms (Тяпкин-Ляпкин Slap-Dash, Humpty-Dumpty Шалтай-Болтай, Brown - Браун), geographic names (the Cape of Good Hope Мыс Доброй Надежды, the English Channel Ла-Манш), names of institutions, organisations, periodicals (General Motors Дженерал Моторс, The Red Lion гостиница Красный Лев), scientific and technological terms (sodium натрий, potassium калий).
Dealing with permanent equivalents a translator may rely on
-transliteration (Michigan Мичиган),
-transcription (Wall Street Journal Уолл Стрит Джорнал),
-word for word translation (the Republican party Республиканская партия), and
-loan translation (magnetic field магнитное поле).
-Regular equivalents, polysemantic words, are of several types: a SL word may cover the meanings of several TL words (deer олень, лань), a TL word is broader in meaning than SL word (бухта, залив, железнодорожная платформа, тупик, стойло bay), the meanings of the corresponding words overlap (layer слой; слой stratum, couch, coat; layer напластование, уровень), a SL word is a lacuna (сутки 24 hours), a SL word is a culture-bound unit (самовар Russian samovar).
Occasional equivalents are words that acquire similar meanings in a context (понедельник день тяжелый Mondays are a crapper). With regard to implications of all these terms on translation quality assessment (TQA), however, two significant developments in these notions would be Nida's (1964, 1969) distinction between formal vs. dynamic equivalence, and the functionalist's orientation from referential equivalence towards pragmatic or functional equivalence.
4O.Elucidate formal vs. Dynamic equivalence.
Nida shifted attention away from translation strategies. He distinguishes formal equivalence (the closest possible match of form and content) and dynamic equivalence (principle of equivalent of TL reader).
Dynamic equivalence (also known as functional equivalence) attempts to convey the thought expressed in a source text (if necessary, at the expense of literalness, original word order, the source text's grammatical voice, etc.), while formal equivalence attempts to render the text word-for-word (if necessary, at the expense of natural expression in the target language). The two approaches represent emphasis, respectively, on readability and on literal fidelity to the source text. There is no sharp boundary between dynamic and formal equivalence. Broadly, the two represent a spectrum of translation approaches.
Because dynamic equivalence eschews strict adherence to the grammatical structure of the original text in favor of a more natural rendering in the target language, it is sometimes used when the readability of the translation is more important than the preservation of the original grammatical structure. Thus a novel might be translated with greater use of dynamic equivalence so that it may read well, while in diplomacy or in some business settings people may insist on formal equivalence because they believe that fidelity to the grammatical structure of the language equals greater accuracy.
Formal equivalence is often more goal than reality, if only because one language may contain a word for a concept which has no direct equivalent in another language. In such cases a more dynamic translation may be used or a neologism may be created in the target language to represent the concept (sometimes by borrowing a word from the source language).
The more the source language differs from the target language, the more difficult it may be to understand a literal translation. On the other hand, formal equivalence can sometimes allow readers familiar with the source language to see how meaning was expressed in the original text, preserving untranslated idioms, rhetorical devices (such as chiastic structures in the Hebrew Bible), and diction. Thus, according to Nida and Taber (1969), a normal translation should aim at the comprehension of the message of the original which is defined as 'the total meaning or content of a discourse; the concept and feelings which the author intends the reader to understand and perceive’.