A Sociosemiotic Approach to Translation-Éç»á·ûºÅѧ·­Òë³õ̽

A Sociosemiotic Approach to Translation-Éç»á·ûºÅѧ·­Òë³õ̽ ½ÚÑ¡

bsp;       Chapter Five
SOCIOSEMIOTIC EQUIVALENCE
          OF TRANSLATION
    The previous chapter discussed the sociosemiotic intercultural
interactive nature of translation and some issues of translation in-
cluding the procedure of translating, the process of translation as
sign interpretation and production, the unit of translation, the strate-
gies of translation, the translator, etc. from sociosemiotic perspec-
tives. In this chapter the focus shifts to a detailed examination of
what is to be transmitted in translation, how it is transmitted and
what happens in the process of transmission.
5.1 The invariant core of translation
    Translation is "interlingual transpositon" (Jakobson, 1959) or
"semiotic transformation" (Ludskanov, 1975). "Semiotic transfor-
mations are the replacements of the signs encoding a message by
signs of another code, preserving invariant information with respect
to a given system of reference." (ibid) It is the invariant information
that the translator has to make all efforts to deliver to the target
reader in translation. This invariant information is termed" invariant
core" by Bassnett following Popovic. The translator must replace in
TL the invariant core of the SL phrase in its two referential systems
(the particular system of the text and the system of culture out of
which the text has sprung) (Bassnett, 1980: 22). What is the invari-
ant core? "In short, the invariant can be defined as that which exists
in common between all existing translations of a single work."
 (Bassnett, 1980:27). What elements compose this invariant core that
exists between all existing translations of a single work? This is an
essential question because the answer will direct the translator's
work as to what has to be guaranteed and what can be sacrificed
when keeping all components of the message is not an option.
    The invariant core of translation in my view is composed of core
meanings and functions of ST, because these are the main compo-
nents of the message of ST and need to be transmitted at any cost in
any translation. In different types of texts, the invariant core is dif-
ferent, with some meanings and functions taking priority. Cultural
information should be the core of this invariant core since transla-
tion is an intercultural communication and the goal of translation is
cultural exchange.
    The sociosemiotic approach to translation aims at transmitting
the invariant core. Translation is a process of information transmis-
sion. The criterion is to transmit as much information as possi-
ble with the invariant core being the first consideration so as to
realize TT-ST sociosemiotic equivalence to the fullest extent.
    Other factors such as readers' response, purposes of the transla-
tor or the sponsor of the translation activity or the publisher or the
user of the translation, the impact of the translation as a whole on
the target culture as compared with that on the source culture, and so
on are all variables. This is the reason why criteria such as dynamic
equivalence are criticized.
    To know what composes the invariant core of translation, it is
necessary to look at what are the meanings and functions' of lan-
guage signs in general.
    5.1.1 Meanings of language signs
    "The meaning of a linguistic form may be best defined as the
range of situations in which that form occurs, or more exactly, it is
the features common to all the situations in which the form occurs
and excluded from all those in which it does not."(Zelling Harris,
1940:227, see Nida 1964:37)
     Since translation aims at "translating meaning" (Nida, 1993:140),
it is necessary for the translator to know clearly what meanings lan-
guage signs have in order to transfer them in translation. Linguists
have different ways to distinguish meanings of language signs. The
most common way is to distinguish between designative meaning
and connotative or associative meaning. This distinction coincides
with Saussure's distinction between signifier and signified. Nida
adopts this distinction and asserts: "The most difficult task for the
translator is to understand thoroughly the designative and associa-
tive meanings of the text to be translated. The designative meaning
is the basic meaning of language which is the dictionary meaning of
language, while the associative meaning is the external meaning at-
tached to language by the user." (1993:5) It is obvious that the sty-
listic meaning of language is ignored by this distinction. As is well
known, the form of language has meaning as well, especially in
some types of texts such as poetry.
    Geoffrey Leech (1987: 13-32) distinguishes seven meanings of
language: conceptual meaning, connotative meaning, social meaning,
affective meaning, reflected meaning, collocative meaning, and
thematic meaning. But the distinction is somewhat too complex and
ambiguous for practical application in translation because they
overlap to a great extent.
    In contrast, Morris' distinguishing of language meanings in se-
miotic perspective is more applicable, because though it is simple
and plain, it fully reflects the relationships between the sign, the ob-
ject, and the interpreter. According to Morris' semiotic theory, lan-
guage signs consist of three meanings: designative (or referential)
meaning, linguistic meaning, and pragmatic meaning. The designa-
tive meaning indicates the relationship between the sign and its ob-
ject; the linguistic meaning indicates the relationship between signs
themselves; the pragmatic meaning indicates the relationship be-
tween the sign and sign user or interpreter, and this is the basic
meaning that contains cultural information. In the dissertation, the
author adopts Morris' classification of meanings of language signs.