He thinks that there is no full equivalence between any two languages because the translator is making use of synonyms and we cannot rely on them to be identical. He defines translation as being two equivalent messages with two different codes. Vinay and Darbelnet (1995) agree with him on the insufficient outcome of relying solely on the linguistic approach of translation. They state that translation involves the same situation but with different words. Jakobson with the other two theorists mentioned above think that translation is not impossible because there are different methods that the translator can choose from in order to
Both Western philosopher Ferdinand de Saussure and Ludwig Wittgenstein have rejected the simplistic notion of the essence in explaining the nature of language, and suggest the similarities between languages are merely one side of the linguistic phenomenon. In this paper, I will first identify and discuss the philosophical positions of Saussure and Wittgenstein on the linguistic theory. Secondly, by articulating the ontology of linguistics that is embedded in their view of language, I will evaluate these two linguists theories in a pragmatic manner and conclude that Anti-essentialism provides better sufficient evidence for uncovering the nature of language. In Ferdinand de Saussure’s most influential work, Course in General
134776 PH134 – Philosophy of Language Cratylus Plato’s Cratylus is a dialogue about the ‘correctness of names’, or the method of assigning or appropriating names to things. In the exchange, three interlocutors participate and contribute to the discussion at hand. Hermogenes defends the idea that the correctness of names is establishing linguistic conventions. He points out the randomness with which names are imposed and facile way of changing them as evidence that there is nothing more than simply ‘convention and agreement’; the name is only justified by agreement. On the other hand, Cratylus argues that names cannot be arbitrarily chosen in the way that conventionalism asserts or advocates because specific names belong naturally to specific
In a particular way, it might have two sentences which show to have something to do with the other as long as their meaning is related, in other words, if an element in the text is interpreted by reference to the other which concludes the standards of the semantic relation. E.g. “He said so.” The sentence is comprehensive as the author states, and we also know the meaning of the sense as the decoding function of it semantically, however, it is impossible to indicate or understand it by the term of meaning or significance, because we do not really know what he said. E.g. “I was introduced to them; it was John Leathwall and his wife.
2.2 Grammatical metaphor Grammatical metaphor is one of the most interesting theoretical notions developed by Halliday (1985/1994) within Systemic-Functional Grammar (SFG). Functional Grammar defines metaphors as variations in the expression of meaning rather than just variations in the use of words. Functional Grammar looks at metaphors from a different perspective, not asking “how is this word used?” but “how is this meaning expressed?” or “how is grammar structured to make the text effective in the achievement of purpose?” There is a kind of transference going on, the transfer of representation between different grammatical categories. The difference in the message is the kind of meaning variation which Halliday (1994) calls Grammatical
2.2 Sense Here we face another principle suggested by Low – Sense, which means that the lyrics should be translated without departing from the basic ideas of the original lyrics. Low (2005, 194) stresses that the meaning remains a significant principle, except in some cases like nonsense songs. Moreover, it is not possible to use an accurate equivalent in the target text, therefore, “a near- synonym, a narrow term by a superordinate term, a particular metaphor by a different one which functions similarly in the context” can be used (Low 2005, 194). However, Coenraats (2011) points out that a translator is allowed to choose how close he will stay to the original text, how he will translate certain cultural elements and how much cultural adaptation
According to them accepting literal translation means that there’s no cultural translation operation. But obviously there are some obstacles bigger than linguistic ones. They are cultural obstacles and here a transposition in culture is needed. It can be summarized that this definition suggests three things: (a) culture seen as a totality of knowledge and model for perceiving things, (b) immediate connection between culture and behavior and events, and (c) culture 's dependence on norms. It should be noted also that some other definitions claim that both knowledge and material things are parts of culture.
In this essay, I will set out to prove that Thomas Aquinas’ First Cause Argument does not show that God exists and the conclusion that God exists does not follow from the premises of the first cause argument. I do think that the conclusion is valid and could be sound/or has the potential to be, but the premises fail to provide the basis upon which to reach such a conclusion. Hence, I will be raising some objections to the premises and will try to disprove any counter-arguments that could be raised in its defense. This would be done by examining Aquinas’ First Cause Argument and trying to disprove it whilst countering arguments in its defense. Thomas Aquinas begins by making the not too startling observation that things move and that there is
Byram, 1997; Alptekin, 2012; Liddicoat et. al., 3013). Alptekin (2012) argues that communicative competence with its native speaker standards is utopian, unrealistic, and constraining in relation to English as an International Language. The approach is considered as misleading since its objective is to help learners achieve a native-speaker-like language proficiency, which Byram (1997) believes to be an impossible goal and results in “inevitable failure” (p. 11), and which Alptekin (2012) considers as a “linguistic myth”. Further, Alptekin (2002, as cited in Alyan, 2011, p. 43) maintains that the cultural aspect of the communicative competence focuses on native speaker and leaves “the learners own culture in a peripheral position or even completely ignored” (p.62).
2. Descriptive Translation Studies (1970s - early 1980s) Descriptive Translation Studies is a term coined in the 1970s by James S. Holmes among others that derived from his division of Translation Studies into pure and applied. Descriptive Translation Studies, as a branch of pure translation studies, comes to challenge major principles inspiring the functional theories of translation, both source and target oriented that focus on the proper use of translation and on the notion of “fidelity to the source text, even though the result may not be considered appropriate for the intended purpose.” (Nord, 1997: 4) As an alternative, this new school of thought indicates that: Instead of asking the traditional question which has preoccupied translation