1917) in his A Linguistic Theory of Translation (1965), defines translation as the substitution of source language text material by an comparable target language material. He defines translation as an equivalence relation. He (1965: 21) states that “the central problem of translation practice is that of finding TL translation equivalents. The core of translation theory is that of defining the nature and conditions of translation equivalence”. Catford’s theory of translation is a theory of meaning.
These are shaped for an artistic purpose, and some of the rules and conversations are different. But in discourse analysis on the other hand tries to analyze literature in terms of co-operative principles, with derived maxims, speech acts and conversational analysis which is an approach totally different from that followed by stylistics in analyzing literary texts. Literary criticism follows subjective approach to analyze and evaluate literature where as stylistics and discourse analysis claim to follow object approach. Besides these differences all the three disciplines are the same. Literary stylistics: in the Cambridge encyclopedia of language, Crystal observes that stylistic analysis would attempt to deal with the complex and valued language with in literature.
According to Newmark (1988), the main goal of translation is to send the meaning of the source language (SL) to the target language (TL). Nonetheless, such meaning is fixed because after gaining the real meaning of the SL, the translator tries to transfer it into the form of the TL so the form will be surely different. Having argued these two factors i.e., meaning and form, we can claim that there are two sorts of translation. Larson (1984) refers to these kinds of translation as form-based translation and meaning-based
Translational Equivalence When we attempt to analyze the various dimensions of translational studies, we would surely find out that translational equivalence or equivalence in translation is one of the most researched and discussed topics. Translational equivalence is the style of translation where the sense or situation of the original term is replicated through the use of different wording (Vinay and Darbelnet, 1995). This sense of the original and its translated word are equivalent and similar. Precisely, equivalence in translation is represented by the corresponding expression of a word in another language. Theorists, linguists, and experts have tried to categorize the translational equivalence into different parts.
2. Review of literature This section concisely sheds light on related literature concerning semantic prosody and cuprous-based studies of semantic prosody and semantic features. Along with the Implication of Semantic Prosody in Translation, followed by the significance of the proposed study and the research methodology and data. 2.1. Semantic Prosody The term semantic prosody, also known as semantic harmony (LewandowskaTomaszczyk, 1996), discourse or pragmatic prosody (Stubbs, 2001), or semantic relationships (Hoey, 2003; Nelson, 2006), was initially developed by Sinclair (1987) who had taken the idea from Firth’s (1957) concept of phonological prosody. Louw (1993) was the one who initially presented the term semantic prosody, and then it was used extensively by Hunston (2002, 2007), Partington (1998, 2004), Stubbs (1995, 2001), Tognini-Bonelli (2001), and Tribble (2000), etc.
„Knowing a language means knowing its word structures and meanings.”( Cambridge University Press, American English: History, Structure, and Usage, Julie S. Amberg and Deborah J. Vause, Word systems) Futhermore, the study of linguistic semantics means to focus on the relations between words,phases, signs and symbols that is used for understanding human expression though language. I think that for understanding a foregn language you need to know different vocabularies and it can be compared with universal uman
Eugene Nida on the other hand is in favour of domestication, although he does not call it by that name. He makes a distinction between two types of equivalences as the two basic translation orientations; formal and dynamic (also known as functional) equivalance. The first focuses mainly on the message itself, paying attention to both form and content. It is a way of giving comprehension into the lexical, grammatical or structural form of a source text; this is similar to literal translation and foreignization. The latter, however, is built on the principle of equivalent effect, meaning the relationship between the target receiver and message should be the same as that between the original receiver and message.
This is a research about Pragmatic Equivalence in the English Translation. Three theories will be applied in this paper; they are very connected with the title to show some of the steps and ways that must be taken in consideration when a translator begins to translate. Pragmatic equivalence: “Pragmatics refers to the meaning of words in context, to the appropriate use of language according to tongue, culture and situation. It refers to the intended meaning behind the surface, semantic meaning.” (Hale, 2004, P.5). Translators should not only translate the semantic meaning, but they should also interpret the pragmatic meaning of utterances.
Content Analysis is a research technique for the subjective, Systematic, and quantitave description of the manifest content of communication. (Barelson 1952:18). Content Analysis is a technique to make inference from a book. Content Analysis is any research technique for making inferences by systematically and objectively identifying specified characteristics of messages. (Holistri 1968:601).
Hence, these individuals who speak different languages must have different wold views. It is the idea that what one perceives is dependent on the language spoken by the individual person. Linguist Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf are basically known for the popularization of this theory. Therefore it being called the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis also known as the Theory of Linguistic Relativity. Their writings state that there is a clear connection between language and thought.