L1 INPUT IN L2 OUTPUT WORD FOR WORD TRANSLATION: A CRITICAL CONTRASTIVE STUDY OF MORPHO-SYNTAX OF INVERSION IN DIRECT REPORTED SPEECH IN GEORGE ORWELL ENGLISH AND FRENCH ANIMAL FARM CORPUS
Abstract
In 21st Century, Translation has been one of very important field in multicultural communication. Though disparities of thoughts in the point of views of some scholars with different oriented paradigms either translation should be word for word, literal, syntactic, semantic or pragmatic. Chomsky extrapolation theory of direct translation of X transfer to Y, Peter Newmark “sense for sense”, Cisero “free translation», L1 in L2, Krashen (1981), Jacobson etc. The scientific debates engaged by the previous cited scholars have never settled the problems of similarities and differences that may still exist between a pair of languages. Thus, translation of SL (source language) into TL (language) should not only limit at word for word, L1 & L2 input-output hypothesis, but also should understand accuracy, meaning, context, and audience. While the problem of translation method and application to meet equivalence is still a dilemma to some teachers and scholars, novice and practitioners when prior involving in translation and lacking faithfulness of SL &TL in South –Kivu institutions of higher education (DRC), the work has enriched the debate by suggesting to the translator how to frame his translation duty not only prior engaging into water sinking and diving without being familiarized with the context of water diving but also should encounter both the rules governing the feature of L1 morphological construction either applicable or non-applicable to L2 morphological construction.
The paper raises a question: does the rule of L1 morphological construction generalization of (UG) universal grammar serve in the production of L2 construction of inversion in direct reported speech? To answer to this question ,the study consisted of collecting data from two novels George Orwell Animal Farm and La Ferme d’animaux; English-French Translated corpus to understand linguistic phenomena that may still exist between a pair of languages in translation.
The present paper has applied qualitative method grounding contrastive analysis in the processing of the data. The finding reveals that similarities and differences can still exist between a pair of language. This means that It is so that (L a) because in L1 there is a rule A that is crucially involved in the derivation of structure of type X having the property of a, where in L2 there is a corresponding rule B that is involved in the same way in the derivation of structures of the type Y which differ from X having the property β where the former had a. So, any attempt to faithfully translate SL into TL requires the mastery of rules governing the linguistic features of both L1 & L2 which might occur similar or different while targeting accuracy, meaning, context and audience perception.
Article visualizations:
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Baker, Mona (1992). Course book on translation. London: Routledge
Catford, John C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An essay on Applied Linguistics, London: Oxford University Press.
Cisero, Horace (1st C.B.C). Free translation
Ferguson, Charles A. (1968). Contrastive analysis and language development. Washington D.C.: George Town Univ. Press
Fisiak, Jacek, ed. (1973). Papers and studies in contrastive linguistics. Vol 1. Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz Univ. Press
George Orwell (1947). Animal Farm, La Ferme d’Animaux
HJorland’s (1997). The Foundation of concept of relevance
Jakobson, Roman (1959). On Linguistic Aspect of Translation,’’ R. A. Brower (ed) On Translation Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.pp.232-39
Korzen (1992:113 f).Language at synchronicity
Krashen, S. D. (1981). The Input hypothesis: Issues and Implications: New york, Longman
Lindfors (2001, 6). The theory and Practice in Language
Meschonnic (2003, 342). Ethics and Politics of Translating
Newmark (1998). A Text book of Translation.Amazon.com
Nida, Eugene A. and C. R. Taber (1969/1982). The Theory and Practice of Translation
Noam Chomsky (1985). Universal Grammar and Second Language Learning, Volume 6, Issue1, Oxford University Press
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2018 Robert M. Kashindi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The research works published in this journal are free to be accessed. They can be shared (copied and redistributed in any medium or format) and\or adapted (remixed, transformed, and built upon the material for any purpose, commercially and\or not commercially) under the following terms: attribution (appropriate credit must be given indicating original authors, research work name and publication name mentioning if changes were made) and without adding additional restrictions (without restricting others from doing anything the actual license permits). Authors retain the full copyright of their published research works and cannot revoke these freedoms as long as the license terms are followed.
Copyright © 2017-2023. European Journal of Literature, Language and Linguistics Studies (ISSN 2559 - 7914 / ISSN-L 2559 - 7914). All rights reserved.
This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library. All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and standards formulated by Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (2003) and Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003) and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Copyrights of the published research works are retained by authors.