A Linguistic Theory Of Translation Catford Pdf Free Download

Ian's scholarly contributions span phonetics, phonology, dialectology, Caucasian studies, comparative linguistics, second language teaching, and translation theory. His publications include over 60 articles and three books: A Linguistic Theory of Translation (Oxford University Press), Fundamental Problems in Phonetics (Edinburgh and Indiana University Press), and two editions of A Practical Introduction to Phonetics (Oxford). The last book, which emphasizes introspective observation of the motor sensations of speech production, cemented his worldwide recognition as a leading, if not the leading, practical phonetician of his time. However, as Ian himself noted in the introduction to the volume, the ability to analyze and control vocal tract postures and movements is not only an important practical ability for phoneticians, but is of theoretical value in that it provides a means for understanding the principles underlying speech sound description and classification. Ian was renowned as well for his pioneering work on the languages of the Caucasus, an interest stemming from 1940 and further fueled by research trips to the former USSR in 1970 and 1977. During these trips, he worked with native-speaking consultants of more than 25 Caucasian languages, and a series of significant publications attests to the productivity of his work in this area. In 1989, U-M Linguistics held in his honor an international conference on "Linguistic Approaches to Phonetics", which resulted in a special issue of the Journal of Phonetics also in his honor. Another volume dedicated to Ian is Sound Patterns for the Phonetician: Studies in Phonetics and Phonology in Honour of J. C. Catford edited by T. Balusubramanian and V. Prakasam (T. R. Publications).

Catford (1978) divides the shift in translation into two major types, level/rank shift and category shift. Level/rank shift refers to a source language item at one linguistic level that has a target language translation equivalent at a different level. In other words, it is simply a shift from grammar to lexis.

Download Zip 🔥 https://ssurll.com/2y4IkG 🔥

There are not only multiple ways of demarcating the disciplines themselves, but also multiple ways of analysing the relationships between them. The analysis can be done from the vantage point of TIS or of linguistics. In the first case, the question is how studies of language can (or cannot) inform studies of translation. In the second, the relevant question is the reverse: how studies of translation can inform studies of language. Furthermore, both subject fields (and the relation between them) can be viewed from different levels of granularity or scope and can be subdivided along a range of distinguishing criteria, for example levels of language (e.g., phonetics, phonology, syntax, morphology, semantics, pragmatics), areas of specific interest (e.g., language history, language contact, psycholinguistics, translation, interpreting, semiotics, multimodality), theoretical approaches (e.g., structuralist theory, relevance theory, generative theory), or research methodologies (e.g., observational methods, experimental methods). Establishing links across fields requires decisions regarding these questions as well.

The discussion is structured around three main foci of TIS. These three foci represent the most salient elements of translational acts and events: textual relationships in translation, translational contexts, and human actors (translators and readers). We critically assess how perspectives from linguistics have been engaged (or not) in research on these key elements (text, context, people). Across all three areas, we also include reflection on methodological development in TIS and its relationship to similar or parallel developments in linguistics. In the concluding remarks, we return to the question of how these relationships impact the trajectory, or trajectories, of TIS at large.

Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics [...] No linguistic specimen may be interpreted by the science of language without a translation of its signs into other signs of the same system or into signs of another system. Any comparison of two languages implies an examination of their mutual translatability; widespread practice of interlingual communication, particularly translating activities, must be kept under constant scrutiny by linguistic science.

A significant methodological limitation of most of the linguistic work up to this point is the non-systematic use of largely anecdotal evidence, and the mix of description and prescription. Moreover, much of the work done in this period had more explicitly theoretical or pedagogical aims, rather than empirical ones. Nida (1964) clearly demonstrated theoretical aims, while Nida and Taber (1969) intended to inform translation practice. Vinay and Darbelnet (1958) were clearly in the latter category as well. For these reasons, there are relatively few methodological developments of note in this particular body of work.

These new developments in TIS reflect the growing shift towards functionalism evident in linguistics and other areas of the human and social sciences at the time. The precise chronology need not concern us here: of primary interest is the observation that theory development within TIS reflected this shift in two ways, one that was relatively independent of linguistic theory and one that relied on or explicitly incorporated functionalist linguistic theories. In these two developments, functionalism impacted the way in which translational products and actions were conceptualised (as having functions in their own right) and the ways in which specific translational options or choices were theorised (as representing various linguistic functions which the translator may or may not heed or prioritise). The ramifications of this evolution were far-reaching, as we shall see.

A very good example of this approach is Neumann (2013), who uses corpus data to analyse register variation across German and English and the impact this variation has on translation between the two languages. Register variation is described using the SFL framework, and the corpus analysis makes use of a set of linguistic indicators including lexical choice, modality, and selected morphosyntactic patterns, among others. The study demonstrates specific patterns of register variation within and between German and English, and the impact of this variation in translated text. The study also illustrates that translated text shows patterns that are independent of the demonstrated crosslinguistic differences, i.e., patterns that are specific to translational communication. The study demonstrates the potential of this framework for detailed empirical studies of translated text, including those using corpus methodologies (see discussion of methodology below).

In the early phases of CBTS, the main theoretical impetus was derived from the notion of the translation universal, a term introduced by Mona Baker in the 1990s, and subsequently much contested, refined, and redefined (e.g., Mauranen & Kujamki 2004). The notion of a translation universal is derived from the concept of language universals: the idea that there are some linguistic features or patterns that are shared by all languages, and that exist as a consequence of universal constraints on linguistic processing or universal human cognitive faculties or experience. In importing the idea into TIS, Baker proposed that universals of translation are linguistic features that set translated texts apart from non-translated texts in the same language, that are independent of the language pairs involved, and that are the consequence of the unique cognitive and social constraints that play a role in translational production (Baker 1993: 243). Baker tentatively outlined some of these features (increased explicitness, an avoidance of complexity, a tendency towards linguistic conservatism) and proposed a method for studying them: comparing corpora of translated texts with corpora of non-translated texts in the same language.

For a variety of reasons (epistemological and theoretical, internal and external to the field), current research in TIS shows an increasing concern with the translators themselves, sometimes in the service of theorising the language(s) they use or the texts they produce. The epistemological and theoretical impetus may lie in the near total dominance of functionalist frameworks in our field; these are frameworks which in crucial ways centre the human communicator in settings that involve fundamentally human goals, objectives, and relationships. Within the field, the introduction of translation technologies may, in some respects paradoxically, be leading scholars to investigate the differences between human and machine translation and the rapidly changing ways in which translators and technologies interact. In developments outside and within the field, the rise of usage-based linguistic theory and of cognitive science also entails a more central position for the translator.

A fruitful exchange with linguistic theory is evident in cognitive translation and interpreting studies (CTIS), though not all work within this subdiscipline acknowledges a specific theory of language or prioritises the linguistic nature of translational action. The difference is not a theoretical one: scholars who make use of linguistic theory may not agree at all on which linguistic theory to adopt. The difference here is an ontological and epistemological one: it is the difference between conceptualising translation/interpreting as a linguistic activity or as a cognitive one. Of course, the two need not be mutually exclusive; however, taking one position or the other as the starting point for theorising means that different constructs and research traditions become relevant. This is clear in the body of work sketched out below.

The theoretical development of usage-based approaches has led to two additional methodological developments that have impacted TIS: (1) the increasing use of multimethod studies, and (2) the growing recognition of the need for enhanced metadata in the construction of corpora. Multimethod approaches often aim at combining data types and analytical frameworks that supplement one another, or that allow for the mitigation of the shortcomings of a single method (Halverson 2017a). This rationale is visible in several studies that combine corpus data with either experimental or other forms of observational data (e.g., Halverson 2017b; Hansen-Schirra 2003; Kajzer-Wiertzny 2012; Szymor 2017). As regards metadata, an example here is the ongoing construction of the Multilingual Student Translation (MUST) corpus, which incorporates a rich set of metadata to profile the linguistic backgrounds of the student translators as well as the constraints associated with the translation task performance. e24fc04721