In the English translation, there are no such phonological features. Similarly, when a Spaniard says, “ Del dicho al hecho hay mucho trecho” (literally “From the word to the deed, there is much distance,” meaning “Its is easier said than done”), a large part of the meaning is conveyed by the interplay of phonological features, such as the repetition of the vowels “ e” and “ o” and of the voiceless post-aveolar affricate “– ch-” (/tʃ/), which requires more physical effort on the part of the addresser when making the utterance, suggesting strenuousness and conditioning the addresser in such a way that he is compelled, through kinaesthesia, to feel the distance (“trecho”) between the “word” (“ dicho”) and the “deed” (“ hecho”). When the target language has no corresponding phonological items to reproduce the same effect, the translation cannot be considered to have adequately carried over the total meaning of the message. When a Frenchman says, “ Quand on est cantonais, on est né à Canton” (literally “When one is Contonese, one was born in Canton,” meaning “Cantonese were born in Canton”), the communication of the message depends as much on the echoing of the same sounds in “Q uand on est cantonais, on est né… canton” as on the signifiés of the individual lexical items on the semantic level. It can be “music” in the conventional sense of the word, with all those qualities associated with what is the mellifluous, melodious, or pleasing to the ear at the same time, it can encompass phonological features that are deliberately cacophonic or discordant, employed by the addresser to get his message across more effectively, more memorably, or with greater emphasis. Article bodyīy “musicality,” I mean phonological features that contribute to the sum total of the original’s meaning. En s’appuyant sur des traductions de la Divine comédie de Dante en espagnol, en français, en latin, en anglais, en allemand et en chinois, ainsi que sur la traduction de Macbeth de Shakespeare en italien, l’article traite de musicalité, soit le trait le plus récalcitrant des traits du texte de la langue source et démontre, en fonction de facteurs à examiner en détails, que des traductions dans les langues parentes peuvent saisir la musique originelle à un degré de succès variable. Cependant, comparé à la musicalité, trait de niveau phonologique, tous les traits du niveau sémantique deviennent relativement faciles à rendre. Cependant, les connotations du lexème, ses associations et nuances, qui peuvent faire surgir des réponses subtiles des lecteurs de l’original, défient souvent le processus du transfert. Sur le plan sémantique, par exemple, la dénotation d’un lexème peut parfois être conservée presque intacte. Ils sont déjà conscients de ce qui manque dans la traduction d’un lexème, que dire alors des longues phrases d’un texte. La plupart des traducteurs conviennent que la traduction est au mieux un ersatz qui ne permet de transmettre qu’une partie du sens du texte source, soit sur deux niveaux : sémantique et phonologique. With reference to translations of Dante’s Divine Comedy in Spanish, French, Latin, English, German, and Chinese, as well as translations of Shakespeare’s Macbeth in Italian, this paper discusses musicality as the most recalcitrant of all features in a source-language text, and attempts to show how, depending on factors to be examined in detail, intrafamily translation, that is, translation between languages of the same family, can capture the original music with varying degrees of success. Yet, compared with musicality, a feature on the phonological level, all features on the semantic level will become relatively easy. However, its connotations, associations, or nuances, which can elicit subtle responses from readers of the original, often defy the process of carrying over or across, which is what transferre, the Latin word from which translate is derived, means. On the semantic level, for example, the denotation of a lexical item may sometimes be preserved almost intact. Even in translating an apparently simple lexical item, to say nothing of long stretches of discourse, they are keenly aware of what is being left out. Most practitioners of translation agree that translation is at best an ersatz, able to get across only part of the source text’s meaning, which is meaning on two levels: the semantic and the phonological.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |