- Les Miserables, Volume II, Cosette
- Match: find love with our dating site!
- Leopold Hotel Brussels EU :
Kohlhaas, pp. Tien jaar later was ik het.
Les Miserables, Volume II, Cosette
En aan het vinden van een goede boswachter, het enige middel. Zeer veel waars. Bovendien, we plaatsen ons niet op rechtsstandpunt. Il ne semble pas que celle-ci devienne jamais plus compacte. Kohlhaas, p. Comme le montre Mlle B. Mais les travaux sur les textes de Streuvels, Walschap, Kleist, Twain, etc. Michel Kohlhaas. Paris: Delalain.
Mlle Annelies Renard Streuvels, Stijn. Old Jan. Translated by Crankshaw. Mlle M. Traduction de Roger Verheyen. Luc Vandeborght et Johan Ryngaert. Van Den Broecke. Hoffmann, E. Van Coolput. Sterne, Laurence: A sentimental journey 2 versions: Mlle M. Streuvels, Stijn: De oogst Mlle K. Streuvels, Stijn: Het Kerstekind M.
Twain, Mark: Tom Sawyer M. Leuven: Leuven UP , — Dans le manuel de Bersani et al. La grande bi- bliographie de Hugo P. Il ne faut pas chercher loin pour localiser dans le temps les traces de cette double volte-face. Comme le Manifeste du Groupe du Lundi This explains why the concrete study of translations and translational behaviour in particular socio-cultural contexts has often remained isolated from current theoretical research, and why there is still, on the whole, a wide gap between the theoretical and the descriptive approach.
- DEEP DINNER - the 1st permanent UNDERWATER RESTAURANT in the world!?
- true gentleman gay escort Helchteren Belgium.
- bdsm gay escort Turnhout Belgium.
- List of keywords beginning with S.
We should ask ourselves, therefore, how translations are to be analysed, in order to make our research relevant both from a historical and from a theoretical point of view. Indeed, our methodology in this respect too often remains purely intuitive. Among the scholars who have been arguing for better collaboration between historical and strictly theoretical translation research, some have tried to elaborate methodological schemes and principles. This article was originally published in The manipulation of literature.
In most cases, however, the target system will be part of the literary system of the target culture, or at least overlap with it. Both source literary system and target literary system are open systems which interact with other systems. All relations mentioned in the scheme deserve to be studied: — — — — — — — — — — T1 — T2 relations between individual texts, i. Relations and equivalence Our scheme is a theoretical and hypothetical one: it shows which relations can play a part in the production and shaping of actual translations, and which ones may be observed in translation description.
In other words, it represents a comprehensive set of questions how has text 1 been translated into text 2, in relation to which other texts? Being no more than a heuristic tool, the scheme obviously has no ontological status. Nevertheless, it comprises all functionally relevant aspects of a given translational activity in its historical context, including the process of translation, its textual features, its reception, and even sociological aspects like distribution and translation criticism. The central question then becomes that of equivalence: what kind of equivalence can be observed between both communication schemes, or between the particular parameters in them?
Is the translation in question target-oriented i. While, say, the stylistic features of a given translation may be primarily target-oriented, its socio-cultural references may still be drawn from the source text. Since translation is essentially the result of selection strategies from and within communication systems, our main task will be to study the priorities — the dominant norms and models — which determine these strategies. The translation process as well as the resulting text and its reception can be studied from different points of view, either in a macro-structural or in a micro-structural way, focusing on linguistic patterns of various types, literary codes, moral, religious or other non-literary patterns, etc.
There is, however, an important difference between traditional statements of this kind, including those that strive for explicitness and intersubjectivity, and the type of analysis we wish to propose; indeed, we aim to replace an atomistic approach with a functional and semiotic one.
Binary versus complex relations Traditionally, translation criticism has been viewed in a strictly binary and one- directional way, as a straightforward confrontation between T1 and T2. In many cases it has been reduced not only to some linguistic aspects of the equivalence problem, but even to the particular question whether or not certain linguistic features in T2 are appropriate equivalents of corresponding linguistic features in T1.
While these binary approaches undoubtedly bring important aspects of the translational problem to the fore, they fail to respect the complex nature of equiva- lence, if only because the translator, working in a particular translational situation, does not necessarily use T1 or S1 as the dominant model. Furthermore, no trans- lation ever accepts either T1 or S1 as its exclusive model; it will inevitably contain all kinds of interferences deriving from the target system. Our attempt to build up a synthetic commentary may well appear utopian, since it is impossible to summarize all relationships involved in the activity of translation.
We are fully aware of this. Indeed, the scholar, as well as the translator, has to establish priorities. In principle, relations within and between S1 and S2 should be taken into account. In every analysis with systemic aims, we have to try and determine which links are dominant, and what their precise functions are.
It will be obvious, though, that in a synthetic approach the dominant norms deserve to be dealt with most systematically. The aims and limits of text comparison The comparison of T1 and T2, to the exclusion of other factors, has often been responsible for the reductionist approach we have been criticizing.
However, it still remains a crucial point, even in a systemic analysis. The comparison of T1 and T2 is therefore a relevant part of translation studies — as long as it does not obscure the wider perspective.
Match: find love with our dating site!
As Gideon Toury — has pointed out, any text comparison is indirect; it is always a comparison of categories selected by the scholar, in a construct which is purely hypothetical. It is, rather, a combination of categories drawn from both the source and the target text, and it could even be enriched by questions arising from the source and target systems. Reducing the confrontation to a differential observation which refers to the source text only would allow us merely to establish what the translation is not. Our reference scheme should be a hypothetical standard which allows us to characterize, not just one or two texts, but translational and textual strategies, i.
The differential approach will, at best, be useful as a stage in the descriptive work, insofar as it is not limited to a one-directional negative approach. In order to obtain a complex rather than a reductionist model, the relationships between S1 and S2 can be used as a general background for the text comparison e. Our own descriptive research has given us the opportunity to elaborate a practical model for a type of textual analysis in which we try to describe and test out translational strategies.
Does the translator or the editor provide any metatextual comment preface, footnotes? A survey like this already gives us a rough idea of the overall translational strategy and the main priorities in it. Of course, we need to test out whether this hypothesis helps us to gather relevant information about the translational strategy and its priorities, or, to put it in more ordinary terms, we have to observe, in this initial stage, both the text in general and a number of concrete text fragments.
It would be naive, however, to think that an exhaustive analysis of every textual problem is feasible.
Leopold Hotel Brussels EU :
We therefore have to follow a certain order in our investigations. It might be wise to begin by looking at different fragments, and then to analyse them again from the point of view of particular textual rules. Does the translator translate words, sentences, paragraphs, metaphors, narrative sequences? He will hardly have been able to translate all these text levels to the same extent and with the same degree of subtlety.
Such a microscopic analysis, which could in some instances be supported with statistical data, enables us to observe the consistency and the hierarchical structure of the translational strategy. It may also allow us to formulate hypotheses concerning the origin and position of this strategy source text? And it will be easy to draw provisional conclusions about individual fragments. These conclusions can be used at a second stage to guide the analysis of other extracts.
Does the translator add or delete paragraphs, words, images, literary features, etc. If the latter, how to explain the discrepancies? Clearly, these rules will ultimately have to be linked with other rules or, better still, with the entire system. If not, can we explain the exceptions? If not, why? Does he show a conscious awareness of rules, norms, models? Does he theorize about them? On which points? The systemic approach enables us not only to comment on translations with the same terminology we use for commenting on literary systems, but also to make general descriptive statements on all levels of both the translational and the surrounding literary system author, translator, readers, texts, micro- and macro- levels.
While describing particular translated texts in some detail, we can point the way to large-scale macro-structural research, or formulate hypotheses to guide such research. But we can and should also do exactly the opposite. This can be done provided the scholar employs hypothetical schemes for all aspects and phases of the translational problem. The implications of a systemic approach One should bear in mind that nearly all these aspects of the translational problem have been and are still being discussed by scholars involved in translation studies.