(s) Material recopilado por
Joseba K. Abaitua Odriozola,
disponible para su reutilización y reciclado permanente en WWW.
Dirección de contacto: abaitua@fil.deusto.es. Facultad de
Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Deusto, E-48080 Bilbao. Esta
página está referenciada en LEGEBIDUNA
y TA. Primera edición: 15/12/96.
| Unidades de traducción | Konzeptu | Dic. 1997 |
Sugiere Toury95:87 que, en la traducción de un texto, lo ideal sería traducir de una tacada el texto completo. Sin embargo, a no ser de que se trate de un texto muy breve, esto es humanamente inviable y el traductor necesita proceder por partes.
En esta misma idea redundan Hatim & Mason90, como señala Bennett94.
La segmentación de los textos en unidades de traducción manejables para el traductor se considera (Larose89, Harris88, Hewson y Martin91) una fase clave de la traducción.
Existen diversas propuestas de definición de segmento, unidad de traducción, o traductema, como lo denomina Larose89:218(resumen): Vinay y Darbelnet58 (resumen), Seleskovitch (resumen), Vázquez-Ayora77 (resumen), Harris88 (resumen), Larose89, Hatim y Mason90 (resumen), Hewson y Martin91 (resumen), Sager93 (resumen), Bennett94 (resumen), Toury95 (resumen), etc.
En cualquier caso, no se trata de un concepto claro, como se desprende de la propuesta de Toury95:88: "la unidad que se elija debe ser apropiada para la operación que se vaya a realizar con ella".
Esta sugerencia de Toury permite suponer que la dimensión del segmento es arbitraria y que puede definirse en función de las necesidades del traductor.
Estas son algunas propuestas de clasificación:
Son numerosos los autores que sugieren dimensiones variables, en un abanico tan amplio como el que va de la unidad léxica hasta el texto completo. Un texto completo, como cuando se trata, p.ej. de un certificado oficial en varios idiomas (Hatim y Mason90:178, Sager93).
Quizá la aportación más matizada sea la de
Bennett94, quien distingue entre:
Otra propuesta de unidades variables es la de Abaitua, Casillas y Mz. Unanue97, quienes distinguen tres clases principales:
From Sager95:225 "Vinay and Darbelnet provide the linguistically correct definition of translation units when they speak of the smallest segment of discourse the cohesion of which is so strong that the parts cannot be separated ("el menor segmento del enunciado en el que la cohesión de los signos es tal que no se entenderían si fueran traducidos por separado").
From Bennett94:12, Vinay&Darbelnet (1958:16,36ss) "the smallest segment of the utterance where the cohesion of signs is such that they cannot be translated separatelly".
"The word cannot be usefully regarded as a UT since this would implay an emphasis on the signifier at the expense of the signfied and the semantics of language".
"UTs are, rather, lexicological units where lexical elements converge in the expression of a single element of thought" (:37).
"The UT is a constrained context, a syntagm where one element determines the translation of the other" (:42).
"UTs sometimes correspond to single words; sometimes to more than one word; sometimes to part of a word".
"Multi-word UTs include idioms, various kinds of collocations, and what might now be called support verb constructions (e.g. faire une promenade 'to take a walk').
De Vázquez Ayora77:11, "Vinay y Darbelnet han agotado el estudio de las unidades lexicológicas en las cuales los elementos del léxico concurren a la expresión de un solo elemento del pensamiento":
Según su función:
Unidades funcionales, las que participan de la misma función gramatical: En vano/ durante varios días/ día y noche/ me aconsejaban buscar trabajo/ en esa fábrica/.
Unidades semánticas, las que presentan una unidad de sentido: a sabiendas/wittingly; darse cuenta/to notice; poner al corriente/to inform, etc.
Unidades dialécticas, las que articulan el pensamiento: en efecto, de ahí que, por lo tanto.
Unidades prosódicas, cuyos elementos participan de una misma entonación: ¡Mira quien habla! / Look who's talking!; ¡No me diaga! / You don't say!.
Según su correspondencia con las palabras del texto:
Unidades simples. Cada una de ellas corresponde a una palabra, como en María compró cuatro libros.
Unidades diluidas (o locutivas). Varias palabras forman una unidad lexicológica compartiendo la misma expresión de una sola idea: a medida que / as; to the extent that / si; en tanto que / while; as far as / hasta, etc. Nida las llama "multiple-to-one equivalents".
Unidades fraccionarias (o idiomáticas). Son partes de una palabra: prender a un ladrón y prender fuego; tomar asiento, tomar una cerveza, tomar el pelo y tomar la palabra, etc.
Grupos unificados, formados por dos o más palabras que ofrecen la máxima cohesión. Son expresiones exocéntricas (opuestas a las endocéntricas, en las que la significación del conjunto puede deducirse de las significaciones de las partes). En las exocéntricas el sentido no puede determinarse a partir de sus constituyentes: a manos llenas / liberally; a quema ropa / point-blank; ir de mal en peor / to go from bad to worse, etc.
Agrupaciones por afinidad, cuando el grado de cohesión es menor, pero los términos están unidos por cierta afinidad y pocas veces pueden traducirse literalmente. Se dividen en:
Seleskovitch equipara la UT con la unidad de comprensión.
:16 Formas de segmentación. Segmentación en unidades lexicológicas o 'de sentido'. En esta fase de la segmentación se encuentran los grupos fraseológicos:
(a) Verbos y nombres con preposición: suposición de que, sustentado por, complacerse en, cargar con.
(b) Grupos afines: a su suerte, tarde o temprano.
(c) Agrupaciones por afinidad: hecho irrebatible, la verdad fue que, hacer esfuerzos por, haber de todo.
(d) Modismos: ligero de palabra, valer la pena.
La coincidencia entre dos lenguas para este tipo de segmentos suele ser muy alta.
:21 Por encima de las unidades lexicológicas estarían las oraciones, cuya segmentación "servirá para esclarecer [...] las relaciones interoracionales de un párrafo y su cohesión interna".
From Toury95:96: "Translators do not translate whole texts in one fell swoop. They proceed a little at a time, and as they do each spurt, each segment forms a fragment of bi-text in their minds. Not only [is] the whole text a bi-text, but each segment combines ST and TT".
Añade Toury "these segments, in turn, are correlated with so-called 'translation units' ".
Importancia de la segmentación de un texto para evaluar la traducción (sección 10.2).
:218 "la traducción (la traductología) estudia sus unidades básicas o traductèmes [...]"
:105 "The semiotic entity as a unit of translation. [...] The translator identifies a source-system semiotic entity. This will be a constituent element of a certain cultural (sub-)system:
al Tawaaf
'circumambulation'
'sacrosanct ceremony of walking round the Kaaba (the Blak Rock) in Mecca'
:107 [This] semiotic entity consisted of a discrete sign. But semiotic entities may be much larger, ranging from complete entities to entire text. One-line slogans (e.g. Salford, the Enterprising City), and entire political speeches in favour of the 'enterprise culture' are, each in their own way, a manifestation of a particular sign".
:57 "Three dimensions of context. (Communicative, pragmatic and semiotic). Semiotic dimension: trating a communicative item, including its pragmatic value, as a sign within a system of signs".
:113 "What this [semiotic transformation] implies for a semiotic theory of translating is that the concept of 'sign' is gradually giving way to that of 'semiotic entity' and, as in some recent formulations, to 'sign function' (Silverman 1983). This arises from what happens when a given portion of reality (Hjelmslev' 'content plane') is subjected by the 'expression plane' to a process of segmentation. The resulting sign-functions are semantic units which, singly or collectively, constitute the filters through which a culture thinks, develops or decays".
Bennett:13 "Hatim&Mason90 is the standard reference on the text as a UT, though the authors acknowledge that a text need not constitute am entire stretch of discourse (:178)".
:178 "we are using the term 'text' not to refer to entire stretches of discourse (articles, books, etc.) but rather to subdivisions made within the undifferentiated whole".
:178 "Text is a coherent and cohesive unit, realised by one or more than one sequence of mutually relevant elements, and serving some overall rhetorical purpose".
:178 "it is of vital importance for translators to identify text boundaries."
:178 "it might at first be supposed that paragraphs (orthographic or conceptual -- see Trimble 1985) are useful indicators or the limits of a text. Indeed, there is often a reasonable degree of correspondence between the paragraph, the topic of the text and its rethorical purpose. But this is by no means always the case".
:178 "A text will be deemed complete at the point where the rethorical goal is considered to have been achieved".
:178 "a boundary will come at a point where a sequence no longer commits the text producer to elaborate further in pursuit of an overall rhetorical purpose".
:178 "More than one paragraph can realise a text, or, alternatively, more than one text can make up a paragraph".
"Importance of text as a unit of translation. Work in contrastive rethoric has shown the importance of discourse structure at the paragraph or text level for determining equivalence (see, for example, Hartmann 1980)".
:180 "At the decision-making stage, the appropriateness of particular items can only be judged in
"While words and phrases are the raw material with wich translators work, decisions about choice of translation are made taking text into account".
:192 "Texture is one of the defining characteristics of text. It is that property which ensures that a text 'hangs together', both linguistically and conceptually.
"Under normal circumstances, we expect of a text that it should be coherent (i.e. have continuity of sense) and cohesive (i.e. display connectivity between its surface elements), and that it should display distinct patterns of thematisation (i.e. that it will be arranged in such a fashion as to draw attention to those parts of its content which are deemed most important -cf. Fowler 1986:61)".
:59 "the processing of the source text involves three types of manipulations: segmenting, structuring, and globalizing. Segmenting the source text will produce the working basis".
Como hipótesis de trabajo, utilizan la oración como unidad.
Critican la metodologtía tradicional:
:86 "Once the basic constituents of meaning had been selected, then a certain number of other constituents were envisaged peripherally in order to modulate this basic definition according to rethorical, stylistic, or textual and even contextual criteria".
Concepts of the unit of translation in human translation (HT)
:12 Different notions of UT may be distinguished:
(1) Translation atom Vinay&Darbelnet (1958:16,36ss) "the smallest segment of the utterance where the cohesion of signs is such that they cannot be translated separatelly".
"The word cannot be usefully regarded as a UT since this would implay an emphasis on the signifier at the expense of the signfied and the semantics of language".
"UTs are, rather, lexicological units where lexical elements converge in the expression of a single element of thought" (:37).
"The UT is a contrained context, a syntagm where one element determines the translation of the other" (:42).
"UTs sometimes correspond to single words; sometimes to more than one word; sometimes to part of a word".
"Multi-word UTs include idioms, various kinds of collocations, and what might now be called support verb constructions (e.g. faire une promenade 'to take a walk').
:13 "One clear conclusion to be drawn from the discussion by Vinay&Darbelnet, and later work (cf. Larose89,22-3) is that there is no single concept of a UT corresponding to a linguistic unit".
"The UT may in different circumstances (depending, say, on the structures encountered and the difficulty of the text) be of various ranks in the hierarchy of linguistic units, and we should be wary of any claims along the lines of 'the UT is the phrase, not the word' (or whatever)".
"Each UT is part of a larger unit, and so on up till the entire text is reached, but no translator can work with any text other than the very shortest as an undivided UT, for reasons of memory limitations if nothing else".
"This first sense of UT, then, is really a translation atom, the smallest segment that must be translated as a whole".
"If it has a corresponding linguistic concept, the best candidate is likely to be the listeme (Di Sciullo & Williams 87)".
"The listemes are the listed or memorised linguistic objects, and may be of any size from morpheme to sentence".
"But as one ascends the grammatical hierarchy, the fewer the proportion of items at each level which are listemes: all morphemes are listemes, but only some phrases and a handful of sentences".
"We can take the listeme as the smalles possible UT, though recognising that the UT will often be larger".
"Importantly, neither listeme nor UT corresponds to an unvarying linguistic unit".
(2) Translation focus "the section of text which the translator focusses on at any one time".
"This may be a translation atom, but may equally well be a larger linguistic unit, as translators presumably proceed in part by assembling smaller translated passages into a progressively larger whole".
"So a translator may go from focussing on the translation of one single word to that of a phrase, then a clause and sentence, and finally an entire text (the organisation of Baker92 partially reflects this)".
"I interpret Bell's claim (91:29) that the translator generally processes the clause as being concerned with the commonest translation focus".
(3) Translation macro-unit "With the text, we have reached the translation macro-unit, the largest linguistic unit which the translator needs to consider".
"Hatim&Mason90 is the standard reference on the text as a UT, though the authors acknowledge that a text need not constitute am entire stretch of discourse (178)".
"While words and phrases are the raw material with which translators work, decisions about choice of translation are made taking text into account".
Bennett se refiere exclusivamente a la TA basada en reglas (rule based MT, RBMT) y en particular al método de transferencia.
:15 "In this picture [of a transfer module], it is the lexical units which constitute the translation atoms, i.e. the UTs in transfer. Such units will ordinarily be words, but may be at a higher or lowel level".
"It is the elements of lexical transfer rules which constitute the translation atoms".
"The claim that translation is essentially compositional, viz. that the translation of complex expressions is a function of the translation of its parts and the way they are combined, implies a fairly simple approach to the larger linguistic units, i.e. larger translation foci".
"In the best case, there should be nothing to say in transfer about higher than the translation atom".
:16 "The simple-transfer methodology in MT results, in the best case, in purely lexical transfer -though 'lexical' here does not simply mean word or morpheme".
"Some lexical unit (or listeme) is transferred with as little attention to the context as possible, and there is a bare minimum of transfer at higher levels of the linguistic hierarchy. Considerations of system design undoubtedly point in this direction".
"The higher linguistic levels, however, stop at the sentence, which for MT is the translation macro-level".
"A text for MT is simply the concatenation of independently-translated sentences, with no consideration of such matters as textual cohesions or rethorical structure (note 5. As pointed out by Hatim&Mason90:24. Their point actually concerns early, pre-ALPAC MT, but little has changed since then)".
"Just as simple lexical equivalences are criticised by translation theorists as being taken out of context, so the same applies to individual sentences:
"Hatim&Mason90:32 claim that decontextualized utterances such as John is eager to please cannot form the basis for useful discussion of translation".
"But this is to elevate discourse matters to far too all-encompassing a status, and the detailed study in the MT literature of translation problems made in the framework of single example sentences shows that such discussion can be insightful".
"Reference to higher-level units in transfer is not absolutely excluded, and could be made when necessary".
"structured-bound [~literal] translations may be a sensible goal - they are certainly not a trivial aim".
:18 "one could claim that manipulation of higher-level constituents should be left to other modules of the MT system".
"Specifically, the sythesis module might be charged with the task of assembling the bricks and mortar from transfer nto a pleasant house suited to its environment".
"Discourse considerations, in particular, can be handled at this level, but even (some) cases of general sentence structure could be hived off to synthesis".
"Fitting a lower-level unit appropriatel into a higher-level one, whether phrase into clause, or sentence into paragraph, or whatever, is in some ways an appropriate task for synthesis, since it is essentially TL dependent".
"For instance, McKeown85 describes s synthesis system TEXT which explicitly takes discourse structure into account".
"Little along these lines has been done in MT, so the claims in this paragraph are somewhat programmatic, but I think they deserve to be taken seriously".
"It is easy to state that one way of improving the quality of MT output is to make MT systems operate more similarly to human translators by increasing the size of the UT".
Bennett argues "that in fact there are good reasons for keeping the UT (in the sense of translation atom) in MT as smal -and hence as manageable- as possible".
"The place to introduce higher-level linguistic consideratins is precisely not the transfer component".
:224 "The size of units of linguistic equivalence translators operate with is decided by the technique chosen. It can be established at the level of the text or the message, or at the lower levels of the sentence, phrase or word".
:225 "The size of the text segments for which translators have to find equivalents also depends on the nature of the document. In certain documents the entire text represents a unit, e.g. a preformulated pattern of a multilingual certificate, into which certain items are inserted. In others, units can coincide with syntactic unists or may have to consist of individual words. There are particular difficulties associated with the segmentation of noun phrases in technical texts into terminological units as opposed to free syntagmatic combinations".
:87 "Much as one would like to regard the text as an ultimate unit, the mapping of a translation onto its assumed source is impracticable unless both texts are broken down".
:88 "What would normally be mapped onto each other, then, is segments of an assumed translation onto segments of its assumed source, rather than the two texts as wholes".
:88 "whatever units one chooses to work with should be relevant to the operation which would then be performed on them: in our case, an attempt to gradually reconstruct both translation decisions and the constraints under which they were made".
:99 "A (gradual) building-up of a repertoire of coupled pairs [segments], on various levels and of varying scope, may well be one thing that acquiring skill in translation involves -one possible component of Levy's famous 'minimax strategy'.
Textemes (mejor ignorar este concepto que no queda bien definido), ...¿unidades textuales?.
"The low of growing standarization: in translation, source-text textemes tend to be converted into target-language (or target-culture) repertoremes".
"In every community, phenomena of various types, linguistic and non-linguistic alike, which have semiotic value for its members, undergo codification. Sets of codified items form repertoires, i.e. aggregates governed by systemic relations, which determine the relative availability of items pertaining to such an aggregate for any particular use within the community's culture".".
:59 "there is an important difference between general language and domain-specific language".
:59 "evidence of the general/domain distinction will be words [of general language] whose meaning is not reducible to a list of separate senses".
:68 "The moment one thinks such a list has been completed, another usage will pop up in a conversation, a novel, an editorial or some other piece of general language".
:69 "Words of general vocabulary are more like wild horses. They do not want to remain stable in their meanining".
:70 "In general language, we are able to produce dynamic meanings as needed for a particular situation, however fleeting, without creating new words".
:70 "Within a domain knowledge, terms are not used with a new sense merely for the purposes of a particular sentence. They have relatively stable meanings because that is the way people want them to be".
:70 "Whithin a domain knowledge created by and shared by people of various language communities, concepts can be treated as if they were language independent".
:80 "Conceptual dependence is a hallmark of general language. No piece of information on any topic can be ruled out in advance as irrelevant of a general-language text until after the text has been read".
:80 "The desirability of sentences being understandable in isolation is a hallmark of domain-specific text".
:81 "[However] sentences of a domain-specific text are not acontextual. They all have the same context, and that context is the domain context".
:81 "A clean domain consists of a finite number of fixed core concepts which are tied together into a coherent network of relationships".
:59 "most texts consist of a mixture of lexical units and terminological units".
:59 "there is an important difference between lexical units (words) and terminological units (terms)".
lexicografía:
terminología:
:45 "Preparing a dictionary for interactively resolving word-sense ambiguities seemed at first to be a well-defined task, at least as well defined as the senses listed in a good dictionary. But questions quickly arose".
:46 "the obvious approach was to identify all the possible concepts onto which a given word can be mapped. [...] we decided to use only language-independent concepts and to assign a unique number to each of them".
:46 "Then, we could map each universal, language-independent concept, which we called a sememe, onto just one word (or a small cluster of grammatically conditioned words)".
47 "The word-sense side was a disaster. As the dictionary got bigger and bigger and we ran more and more texts through the analyzer, it became harder and harder for native speakers of English to decide among the word-sense options listed for a given word".
:48 "[By 1978] I had become convinced that what we had been looking for, the universal, language-independent set of sememes, did not exist".
:50 "The concepts of a narrow domain and the concepts of general language are of a fundamentally different nature".
:53 "a text that consisted solely of general vocabulary would be a sequence of pieces of clay moulded together".
:53 "The particular sequence of shapes may never have occurred before, even if the same words occured previously, since the words are dynamic and their meaning shift in different situtations, just as the shape of a piece of clay changes as you work it".
:53 "a text of a very narrow domain, such as the domain of weather bulletines, would be mostly a sequence of stones, consisting almost entirely of terms, with little general vocabulary, just enough to hold the stones together, and no dynamic usages".
:53 "Each term has a fixed and consisting meaning".
:59 "evidence of the general/domain distinction will be words [of general language] whose meaning is not reducible to a list of separate senses".
:67 "Semiotics or semiology is the science which studies signs in their natural habitat-society. Envisaged by Saussure as part of social psychology, and identified by Peirce as having a distinctly 'logical' bias, semiotics focuses on what constitutes signs, what regulates their interaction and what governs the ways they come into being or decay. As Jakobson (1971:698) puts it:
"Every message is made of signs; correspondingly, the science of signs termed semiotics deals with those general principles which underlie the structure of all signs whatever, and with the character of their utilization within messages, as well as with the specifics of the various sign systems..."
LEVY67:1179 "That one of the possible solutions which primises a maximum of effect with a minimun of effort".
GERZYMISCH-ARBOGAST95:279 argues against: "the traditional view has been that terms (and LSP texts too) are exact, owing to their postulated one-to-one name-concept relationship."
HARRIS88:8-9 "bilingual [...] text stored in such a way that each retrievable segment consists of a segment in one language linked to a segment in the other language which has the same meaning".
| Unidades de traducción : Gestalt | Dic. 1997 |
[ The international Society for Gestalt Theory and its Applications (GTA) | Gestalt in philosophy, logic, sciences | ]
SNELL-HORNY88:31 "An analysis of parts cannot provide an understanding of the whole".
by Ingar
Roggen, University of Oslo, Norway
To study a Gestalt is to study a
perception as a whole, its conditions and consequences. Why study such
Gestalts? The founders of Gestalt philosophy and psychology had reasons of
their own for reacting against the dominant atomism and positivism at the end
of the last century and beginning of this one. They offered a holistic,
meaningful approach to human experience as alternative and succeeded greatly -
for a while. But why should anyone care about Gestaltism now? Are there any
prizes awarded, degrees to achieve, research funds, positions? Gestalt
philosophy seems to be a rather especial way of thinking, apparently only
promoted by Christian von Ehrenfels, although Edmund Husserl contributed with a
chapter in his Philosophie der Arithmetik. Gestalt psychology is certainly
"outmoded". Ask students of psychology what they are taught or have learned
about it! Not even the widely practised Gestalt therapy has any high standing
in the circles of academic psychology. Among the great philosophers of our
time, only Arne Næss has lately showed interest for Gestalt
philosophy.
It was Christian von Ehrenfels (1859-1932), an Austrian philosopher-psychologist, who in 1890 defined the essential concept of Gestalt philosophy, "Gestalt qualities". 1) A property is a "Gestalt quality" if it only can be present in a whole, but not in its elements. E. g., a tune has musical properties that its separate notes cannot have. A whole is a "Gestalt" in so far as it has Gestalt qualities. The Gestalt concept can also be applied to perceptual social phenomena, e. g. a concert, where the orchestra usually occupies the center of attention, with the public as a surrounding periphery.
The expression "Gestalt logic" was first used in 1945 by Max Wertheimer
in the last chapter of Productive thinking. 1) Here it is used as a general
term for systems of logic based upon the Gestalt laws. One result of Gestalt
logical research is a proof that a tautological sentence is a Gestalt, and that
also a contradiction is a Gestalt. These proofs are based upon Ehrenfels's
definition of a Gestalt quality. To define a "Gestalt quality" one must start
with a composite unit that has at least some parts which are of the same
category as the unit, for example the sentence
(1) If (2) then (3).
To
simplify the argument I shall represent proper sentences as numbers in
parentheses and call them sentences. The reader may prefer to call such
expressions "sentence forms" or "sentence schemata". (1) is a composite
sentence with the sentences (2) and (3) as components. Therefore (1), (2) and
(3) are of the same category, and (2) and (3) are parts of the composite unit
(1). Also (2) and (3) may in turn be composite sentences with further component
sentences. The words "if" and "then" are also parts of (1), but of another
category than (1), so they can be disregarded as irrelevant to the example. To
get a Gestalt of this category, one may write the sentence
(4) If (5) then
(5).
Here it is clarifying to apply Pierce's distinction between tokens and
types. According to his definition there are for example two tokens of the type
"(5)" in (4). It is also common to say "ocurrence" instead of "token".
Sometimes we talk about units and parts or other things as types, sometimes as
tokens or ocurrences, and sometimes the distinction does not matter. I shall
use these terms when it makes a difference. The composite sentence (4) has the
logical property of being true independently of the truth values of its two
component sentences of type (5). That is, the truth value of (4) is constant.
This is due to the explicit logical form of (4) as against the explicit logical
form of the two ocurrences of (5). On the other hand, (5) can be true or false,
so (5) has a variable truth value. Therefore, (4) is a unit with a property
that its parts of type (5) do not have, in this case the property of being a
constantly true sentence.
Following Ehrenfels we shall define a property of
a unit of a certain category as a "Gestalt quality" if it has parts of the same
category which cannot have this property. It is possible to give alternative
definitions in terms of necessity or essence, stating for example that a
Gestalt quality is a necessary or essential property of a unit and not of its
parts, but the above definition should be sufficient for our purposes. A unit
with a Gestalt quality can then be called a "Gestalt". In Gestalt theory, the
term "wholes" is reserved specifically for such Gestalts only.
The common
statement that "a whole is more than the sum of its parts" is suggestive, but
insufficient to define a Gestalt as a whole and should only be taken as a
starting point for a precise definition. In (4) we have an example of a Gestalt
that merits classification as a logical Gestalt. A sentence of the logical form
of (4) is called a "tautology" in logic, so we have just proved that a
tautology is a Gestalt. Incidentally also a contradiction is a Gestalt, as
shown by (6) Not (4). Since (4) is constantly true, (6) must be constantly
false independently of the truth values of its components, the two ocurrences
of (5). These results can be generalized defining "logical autonomy" as the
property of having a constant truth value, independently of what this truth
value is. Logical autonomy is a Gestalt quality, therefore a "logical Gestalt"
can be defined as a logically autonomous sentence. To prove that a sentence is
a logical Gestalt according to Ehrenfels's definition it is sufficient to prove
that its truth value is constant. However, as we have seen, both tautologies
and contradictions have constant truth values. Therefore, a proof that a
sentence is a logical Gestalt according to Ehrenfels's definition shows that it
is either a tautology or a contradiction, but gives no information about its
truth or falsity. To obtain such information, another Gestalt logical method
must be applied.
Gestalt, voz alemana que suele traducirse por "configuración", "forma" o "estructura". En psicología se interpreta como integración de miembros en oposición a suma de partes. En un sentido más estricto es un término aplicado a unidades organizadas de experiencia y de conducta que poseen propiedades específicas no derivables de las partes y sus relaciones, en oposición asensación, reflejo y otros conceptos que pueden ser tratados como sumas de unidades simples.
Gestaltismo, sistema de la Escuela de Gestalt de Psicología alemana, fundanda por Wertheimer, Köhler y Koffka. Según esta escuela, los fenómenos físicos y psicológicos constituyen una unidad, un todo funcional que no se puede analizar en sus partes, ya que no está constituido por la suma de los elementos separados.
Texts have been studied by many disciplines - in so called analytical bibliography (Kraft90:77-79) or codiology, texts are studied as physical objects with physical properties.
In classical, medieval, and biblical philology and text criticism the physical objects containing texts are called text witnesses, the text being an abstract entity.
In linguistics texts are sometimes regarded as discourse events, sometimes as strings of sentences (de Beaugrande and Dressler81, Halliday and Hasan90).
In SGML, a text is associated with a Document Type Definition (DTD). The DTD defines a document type, declaring which basic constituents a document may have, how they should be marked up, and how these marked-up elements may be combined.
An SGML-encoded text is a hierarchy of serially ordered text elements, the structure of which adheres to the declarations given in the associated DTD.
Since the DTD is specified in a highly structured formal language, it is possible to design computer programs to check whether any given text adheres to the specifications and definitions given in the DTD. This has several advantages and increases control over composition, analysis, and manipulation of texts.
SGML has a strong prescriptive power which makes it well suited for exerting control over the structure of documents.
KUSSMAUL95:72 "In professional translation, text types of non-literary kind play an important part, and one would expect them to have been the object of translation studies. However, so far we have, it seems, been much more in favour of building models than studying material on contrastive basis".
Misma queja de ALEXIEVA94:178, quien señala la dificultad para establecer una tipología.
Repasa varios autores que demuestran "the shortcomings of classical theory of categorization of text-typology".
"The vast majority of texts are in hybrid forms, multi-dimensional structures with a blend of sometimes seemingly conflicting features".
"Prototypology [of texts]: a dynamic, gestalt-like system of relationships, whereby the various headings represent an idealized, prototypical focus and the grid-system gives way to blurred edges and not to the exception".
Diagram in page 32:
"On the horizontal plane the diagram represents a spectrum or cline [...] on the vertical plane, the diagram represents a stratificational model, which, in accordance with the gestalt-principle, proceeds from the most general level to the most particular level:
Level A represents the conventional areas of translation: literary - general - special language translation.
Level B presents a prototypology of the basic text-types: Bible - Stage/Film - Lyric/Poetry - Modern Literature - Newspaper/General Information texts - Advertising - Legal - Economic - Medicine - Science/Tech.
Level C shows the non-linguistic disciplines which are inseparably bound up with translation: Cultural History / Literary Studies - Sociocultural and Area Studies - Studies of Special Subjects.
Level D names important aspects and criteria governing the translation process itself: Extensions of the norm - Narrowing scope of interpretation - Conceptual identity.
Level E names those areas of linguistics which are relevant for translation: Historical Linguistics - Contrastive Grammar - Terminology.
Level F names phonological aspects of specific relevance for certain areas of translation: Sound / Rhythm.
BELL91:205 divides texts according to the dominant function and envisages further subdivisions, each of which is realised in a number of text forms:
"Senior translators at the Commission of the European Communities have issuded three different lists of categories of source texts in their areas of work.
| Unidades de traducción : Bibliografía | Dic. 1997 |
Bennett, Paul. 1994. Translation Units in Human and Machine. Babel, 14.
Harris, Brian. 1988. Bi-text: A New Concept in Translation Theory. Language Monthly 54:8-10.
Hatim, Basil & Ian Mason. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. Longman.
Huitfeldt, Claus. 1995. Multi-Dimensional Texts in a One-Dimensional Medium. Computers and the Humanities 28:235-241.
Larose, Robert. 1989. Thérories contemporaines de la traduction. Presses de l'Université du Québec.
Melby, Alan K. 1995. The Possibility of Language. A discussion of the nature of language with implications for human and machine translation. John Benjamins
Sager, Juan C. 1993. Language Engineering and Translation. Consequences of automation. John Benjamins.
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1988. Translation Studies. John Benjamins.
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. John Benjamins.
Vázquez-Ayora, Gerardo. 1977. Introducción a la Traductología. Georgetown University Press, Washington.
Vinay, J.P. & J. Darbelnet. 1958. Stylistique comparée du français et l'anglais. Didier, Paris.
Zhu, Chunshen. 1999. The sentence as the key functional unit of translation. META 44,3: 429-447.
| Unidades de traducción : Índice | Dic. 1997 |