Frame-based Interpretation Of Readers Reception Of The Parallel Translations

Frame theory is intended to serve as a tool for linguistic and psychological investigations

. The latter two constitute what we call cognitive linguistics, where the psychological processes, which take place in the mind mainly in comprehension are explained within linguistic boundaries, and vice versa, where the linguistic utterances are observed as physical manifestations of brain work. The fact that pure linguistic knowledge is insufficient to entangle the intricacies of utterances and the units, which make them up, can easily be proved by computer analysis. What the machine cannot be taught is the interim knowledge, which only the human brain is capable of storing and handling. Only real world knowledge, built up on the basis of experience, makes it possible to infer the message conveyed by texts, that is, stretches of written or oral utterances. The missing links, which are assumed by the text, need to be supplied by the receiver. Narrative economy is the greatest requirement for the texts, which are written with the most condensed form of languagepoems. Frames are supposed to be directly accessible units, which organize items or chunks of information. They store knowledge of stereotypical situations. The question, to what extent can be poems regarded as ordered sequences or random heaps of stereotypical situations, may be as hard to answer as it is to tell literary and non-literary texts apart. A poem is defined as utterance; providing aesthetic delight in language play; having a special vocabulary a-temporal, complete in itself, should cohere at a symbolic level, expresses an attitude, its typographic arrangements can be given spatial or temporal interpretations; a structure of signifiers which absorbs and reconstitutes the signified; not being used in the language-game of giving information; having the language of paradox; just to quote a few.

Apart from Wittgensteins skepticism, there is no argument against poems passing on somethingemotions and attitudes. What is more, we can easily contradict Wittgensteinemotions do not exist on their own; emotions are evoked by actions; they are the results of activities. The comprehension of events evoke frames in the mind, therefore, emotions, being logical entailments of activities, do the same. On the other hand, emotions cannot be described without embedding them in context, that is, the actions that incite them.

The activation of frames in the mind is the pivotal point in understanding. Comprehension is nothing but interpretation. It is true, however, that not only background knowledge is activated in the form of frames, but the first step in the mental processes is the calling up of the generic frame when assigning a text to a particular genre. On the other hand, this applies rather to narrative prose. Even if the generic frame poem is activated in the readers mind, the further main frame and the supporting minor frames can be various for the simple reason that it is the poem that is given the most diverse interpretations. Therefore, framing a poem does not impose the same kind of constraints on interpretation as in the case of prose.

Framing is endophoric as well as exophoric, relying on intratextual and intertextual information, respectively. In this research I do not differentiate them; for my purposes the simultaneous application of both is relevant. The third type of framingcircumtextual framingis important when reading poems because it refers to the material presentation of the text. To interpret poems is challenging for many reasons; the greatest is that the readers are normally unaware of the acts of framing, but in a research like this they are requested to verbalize their unconscious and intuitive reactions.

The translatability of poems has always been the cardinal point for literary people as well as translation theorists. Landers (2001: 97) quotes Ciardi (1961) who takes the sceptical side: the translation of poetry is the art of failure. Szegedy-Maszk compares translation to music: This [the separation of signifier from the signified] seems almost as problematic as [] pentatonic into twelve-tone music. Zdanys (1987) approaches the problem from a different anglehis ambivalence concerns the teaching of literary translation because he feels that this creative process cannot be taught. Nevertheless, he later changes his mind and concludes that the art of translation can not only be taught, but can also make the student more aware of aspects of poetry, language, aesthetics, and interpretation. Zdanys, like many others, finds translation a subjective activity, subsuming translation under the larger goal of interpreting literature.

The difficulties in translating poems range from the formal requirements including scansion and rhymes to the semantic level. The figurative language, which poets use, transcends the semantic limitations of language, that is, the greatest challenge in translation lies in the seizure and transmittance of the micro- as well as the macrometaphorically expressed content. Poems are not exempt from ambiguity or polysemy either. Still, there is unity in poems, and the concept of unity is often used to mean a reconciliation of meaning and form.

The translator is the first interpreter of the poem. If we follow Hollands psychoanalytic interpretation strategies, which are based on the direct proportion of interpretations and readers, we will see the translator as one of the many readers having one of the many viable interpretations. The problem is now obviouswhat if different translators interpret the poem in different fashions? What if the majority of the readers will have a divergent reading from that of the translators? There seem to be several resolutions

The reader of the translated poem should read the original text too, or

There should be as many translations of the same poem as possible, or

The reader should read the translated version as if it was the original.

In the first case comparisons can be made and the reader can become the critic of the translation, and the content will reach him through different channels, giving the possible inferences at hand. The translation might help to disambiguate the meaning if necessary, or the two texts will help the reader to arrive at a full understanding. According to the second, the different translations will provide different viewpoints, which will either merge in the readers mind in the form of one interpretation, or the reader will choose the one he likes best. In the third case the reader is left with one optionhe will interpret the only text at hand.

Translation theory is central to anyone interpreting literature. Along with literary theories, translation theory is becoming increasingly relevant. Interlingual translation cannot be isolated from multiple linguistic, literary, and cultural aspects.

Richards understands poems, along with the reading, interpretation and translation of them, as part of a global systemcommunication. Communication comprises reception and production, alternately and mutually preconditioning each other. Reading, interpretation and translation are both receptive and productive processes, they are never separable. Reading is the achievement of primary experience, translation can be seen as the rearticulation of the experience, and interpretation constitutes part of both. The goal is to achieve perfect rearticulation at each level. This is the point where a conceptional paradigm is noticeablefrom the goal of deciphering authors meaning there was a shift in the 1980s towards a reader-oriented approach to literature, which allowed the reader to understand whatever he wished. The question is whether the translator belongs or must belong to the requirements laid down in the first period or he is the reader of the later era. Another question is how poems can fit into the readerly-writerly distinction, which is based on the readers involvement in the literary text. Richards redefined his theory while discussing how one should compare translations to original texts. In his project he attempted to resolve problems inhibiting perfect understanding. Richards aim, for literary translators to find and agree on a common purpose in order to determine an appropriate methodology, bore no fruit due to the huge number of different interpretations and translations. He realized that the fields of comparison within the process of translation were too broad. Speculations became unlimited, thus slipped out of seizure.

This model is built upon the Saussurean theory of communication where only encoding and decoding take place; it does not consider what pragmaticians later defined as inference. Without the readers inferential strategies the message cannot be passed on. Therefore, this model excludes the subjective nature of interpretation. This subjectivity suspended the possibility of a common objective basis for translation.

From the point of view of its relevance in translation, interpretation is determined by the primary structure of understanding in relation to interpretation and the circularity of understanding. The mere existence presupposes the understanding of the world and the understanding of the things to be interpreted. Consequently, interpretation is not the seizure of something anticipated without any presupposition. The hermeneutic circle or the circle of interpretation is based on the assumption that the meaning of the parts is determined by the meaning of the whole and, vice versa, the meaning of the whole is made up of the meaning of the parts. However, understanding is more as well as less than mere logic. One needs to enter the circle instead of stepping out of it.

As far as the translator concerned, he enters the circle by understanding the text but must step out of it while rendering the text into the target language. A translator is a rewriter who determines the implied meanings of the target language text, and who also, in the act of rewriting, redetermines the meaning of the original. The translator converses with the text, just like the dialogue or conversation, which takes place as the fundamental process in understanding. Understanding is nothing but a conversation between people; it is based on questions and answers. If we do not understand the question, we cannot answer it. The archetype of human communication is the dialogue. However, the understanding of the written word requires a spatial and temporal estrangement, that is, the translator cannot be prevented from being alienated from both text and author. The translator must not only understand what the author had in mind but he must understand it in its particular linguistic presentation.

Aunes Oversettelser AS has been in the business for 26 years, and we are specialized in technical translations. We are specializing in the Nordic languages, and can offer services into Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Norwegian and Icelandic. The premier translation agency for Norway and the Nordic region! Technical translation services for businesses in the Nordic countries and translation agencies world-wide.

by: carmen

POST COMMENT

Direct Deposit Advance- Perfect Cash Advance For Everyone Varieties Of Chalkboards Found In The Marketplace Laser Device Program Bar Value Guests Vs Picture Bar Value Scanners Snoring Problem Can Ruin Good Marriage Laser System Device System Bar Value Visitors Vs Image Bar Value Scanners Amazing Features Of Hyundai Genesis 2013 Forex Minute Trader Review Every One Of Burberry Handbags Whoesale These Outlets Have Been Currently Aspects To Consider For Window Replacement Kansas City Turning Your Hole Of An Office Workstation Into A Productive Hub How To Care For Bearded Dragon Knockout Mvc: Build Better Rias Faster! Lifting Gear Hire In Yorkshire & Lancashire