Usuario:SaraBenitezM/Taller
La Traducción del sentido es la norma más antigua para la traducción. Supone esencialmente traducir el significado de toda la oración antes de pasar a la siguiente, y tiene una oposición normativa a la traducción palabra por palabra (también conocida como traducción literal), que implica traducir el significado de cada elemento lexical de manera secuencial.
Historia editar
El término se atribuye a San Jerónimo en su "Carta a Pamaquio", donde decía que, "salvo en las sagradas Escrituras, porque allí el orden de las palabras trae misterio," él traduce non verbum e verbo sed sensum de sensu: no palabra por palabra sino sentido por sentido.[1]
Sin embargo, se discute que San Jerónimo haya sido quien creó el concepto de la traducción sentido por sentido, pues muchos académicos piensan que fue inventado por [[Marco Tulio Cicerón|Cicerón]] en ''De Oratore'' (El Orador), cuando dice al traducir del griego al latín "I did not think I ought to count them out to the reader like coins, but to pay them by weight, as it were."<ref>Robinson, ed., ''Western Translation Theory'', 9.</ref> Y ciertamente no está acuñando el término "palabra por palabra", sino bien tomándolo prestado de Cicerón, or possibly from [[Horace]], who warned the writer interested in retelling ancient tales in an original way ''Nec verbo verbum curabit reddere / fidus interpretes'': "not to try to render them word for word [like some] faithful translator."<ref>Robinson, ed., ''Western Translation Theory'', 15.</ref> Some have read that passage in Horace differently: :[[Boethius]] in 510 CE and [[Johannes Scotus Eriugena]] in the mid-9th century read it to mean that translating literally is "the fault/blame of the faithful interpreter/translator," and fear that they have incurred it; [[Burgundio of Pisa]] in the 1170s and Sir Richard Sherburne in 1702 recognize that Horace is advising not translators but original writers, but still assume that he is calling ''all'' translation literal; and [[John Denham (poet)|John Denham]] in 1656 and [[André Lefevere]] in 1992 take Horace to be warning translators against translating literally.<ref>For Boethius, Eriugena, Burgundio, and Denham, see Robinson, ed., ''Western Translation Theory'', 35, 37, 42, and 156. For Sherburne, see T. R. Steiner, ''English Translation Theory, 1650–1800'' (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1975), 89. André Lefevere's translation of Horace appears in Lefevere, ed., ''Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook'' (London and New York: Routledge, 1992), 15: "Do not worry about rendering word for word, faithful translator, but render sense for sense." This of course not only makes Horace's advice for the writer into advice for the translator, but anachronistically imports Jerome's coinage back into Horace's dictum, which actually preceded it by four centuries. For discussion, see also Douglas Robinson, ''Who Translates'' (Albany: SUNY Press, 2001), 170–174.</ref> ==Similar concepts== In his 1680 preface to his translation of ''[[Ovid|Ovid's]] Epistles'', [[John Dryden]] borrowed the ancient terms ''[[metaphrase]]'' for word-for-word translation and ''[[paraphrase]]'' for sense-for-sense translation. He takes the opposition from [[Quintilian|Quintilian's]] 95 CE [[Institutio Oratoria]] ("Institutes of Oratory"); Quintilian himself borrowed the former term from [[Philo Judaeus]] in his 20 BCE ''De vita Mosis'' ("The Life of Moses").<ref>See Robinson, ed., ''Western Translation Theory'', 14 (Philo), 20 (Quintilian), and 172 (Dryden).</ref> Dryden's third term is ''[[imitation (art)|imitation]]'', by which he means something like what Horace counseled: making a traditional story your own by ''not'' translating it faithfully (either word-for-word or sense-for-sense). Not all commentators are so careful with these terms, however. Many have drawn a simple binary opposition between "free" translation and "literal" or "direct" or "close" translation, meaning by the former something that vaguely covers the entire range from sense-for-sense translation to free imitation and by the latter something like word-for-word translation. [[Eugene Nida|Eugene A. Nida's]] terms [[dynamic and formal equivalence]] have also been taken to mean essentially the same thing as sense-for-sense and word-for-word translation, and Nida did often seem to use them this way; but his original definition of dynamic equivalence was [[rhetoric]]al. The idea was that the translator should translate so that the ''effect'' of the translation on the target reader is roughly the same as the effect of the source text once was on the source reader. [[Lawrence Venuti|Lawrence Venuti's]] concept of [[domestication and foreignization|domestication]] or "fluency," too, is intended to capture something like the ancient notion of sense-for-sense translation; like Nida's distinction between dynamic and formal equivalence, however, Venuti's distinction is fundamentally rhetorical in nature, focused not on the formal structure of syntax ("segmentation") but on the relationship between the translator and the target readership. Like [[Friedrich Schleiermacher|Friedrich Schleiermacher's]] distinction between "bringing the author to the reader" (domestication) and "taking the reader to the author" (foreignization),<ref>See Robinson, ed., ''Western Translation Theory'', 229.</ref> from which Venuti derived it, the distinction between domestication and foreignization is a [[hermeneutics|hermeneutical]] one aimed at an [[ethics]] and [[politics]] of translation, and thus quite far from the [[linguistics|linguistic]] [[formalism (philosophy)|formalism]] that characterizes segmentational approaches to sense-for-sense and word-for-word translation. But there is also a strong sense in which domestication is a geohermeneutical ''rethinking'' of sense-for-sense translation, based on the recognition that the ancient preference for sense-for-sense translating is grounded not in pure formalism but in a specific generalized hermeneutic of "[[natural language]]" and easy accessibility for target readers who don't want to work too hard, and have no inclination to rethink their world. So foundational is the distinction between sense-for-sense and word-for-word translation to two millennia of thinking about translation, numerous authors have invented new terms for them that do not actually add anything to the distinction. A case in point is [[Peter Newmark|Peter Newmark's]] distinction between "semantic equivalence" (word-for-word translation) and "communicative equivalence" (sense-for-sense translation). ==Segmentation== The technical term for the approach to translation that distinguishes between sense-for-sense and word-for-word translation is "segmentation": the two methods are essentially different ways of ''segmenting'' the source text for translation, into individual words or phrases, clauses, sentences, and larger textual units. In rare cases, sense-for-sense translation overlaps with word-for-word translation. For example, when the German sentence ''Johan ist nicht zu Hause'' is translated as ''Johan is not at home,'' that target text is an "idiomatic translation"<ref name= "ccsenet">Ziaul Haque, Md. [http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijel/article/view/22598/14599 "Translating Literary Prose: Problems and Solutions"], ''International Journal of English Linguistics'', vol. 2, no. 6; 2012, p. 107. Retrieved on April 02, 2015.</ref> of the whole sentence that also renders word for word: :Johan :ist = is :nicht = not :zu = at :Hause = home It could also be argued, of course, that ''zu Hause'' is literally "to house," and that translating it "at home" effectively renders the two words not as two words but as a coherent idiom. This reading would undermine the claim that the translation "Johan is not at home" is ''both'' word-for-word and sense-for-sense: "at home" would be a sense-for-sense but not word-for-word rendering. Cases in which a sense-for-sense is identical to a word-for-word translation are extremely rare because different languages almost invariably structure sentences differently (use different [[syntagma (linguistics)|syntagmata]] or word orders). To reproduce some close approximation of the meaning of a whole sentence in another language, therefore, one must almost always change the word order to reflect the idiomatic syntagmata of the target language. The fact that most translators and [[translation studies|translation commentators]] have preferred sense-for-sense over word-for-word translation reflects the common assumption that the purpose of ''all'' translation is to communicate the meaning of the source text in a way that will be easily accessible to the target reader. Proponents of various literalisms (including [[domestication and foreignization|foreignisms]]) dispute that generalization. == References == {{reflist}} == Further reading == * [[Edwin Gentzler|Gentzler, Edwin]] (2001). ''Contemporary Translation Theories''. 2nd Ed. London and New York: Routledge. * [[André Lefevere|Lefevere, André]]. (1992). ''Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook.'' London and New York: Routledge. * [[Peter Newmark|Newmark, Peter]]. (1988). ''A Textbook of Translation''. New York: Prentice Hall. * [[Eugene Nida|Nida, Eugene A.]], and Charles R. Taber. (1969). ''The Theory and Practice of Translation''. Leiden: Brill. * [[Douglas Robinson (academic)|Robinson, Douglas]]. (2001). ''Who Translates? Translator Subjectivities Beyond Reason.'' Albany: SUNY Press. * Robinson, Douglas, ed. (2002). ''Western Translation Theory From Herodotus to Nietzsche.'' Manchester: St. Jerome. * Steiner, T.R. (1975). ''English Translation Theory, 1650–1800''. Amsterdam: Rodopi. * [[Lawrence Venuti|Venuti, Lawrence]]. (1995). ''The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation''. London and New York: Routledge ([http://www.freewebs.com/dennis_rusu/the%20translator's%20invisibility.%20history%20of%20translation.pdf Read full version here]) {{DEFAULTSORT:Sense-for-sense translation}} [[Category:Translation studies]] [[Category:Translation]]
- ↑ Douglas Robinson, ed., Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche (Manchester, UK: St. Jerome, 1997, 2ed 2002), 25.