Microsoft Word Revised Syllabus Ver doc

Semantic Adjustment made in transfer
Language is a device for communicating messages, then it follows that language and 
linguistic forms are means to an end rather than an end in themselves. The content is the 
conceptual intent of the message, together with the connotative values the source wishes to 
communicate; it is what the message is about. The form, on the other hand, is the external 
shape the message takes to effect its passage from that for any given content, a language 
makes available numerous forms which could equally well convey the message.
In transferring the message from one language to another, it is the content which must 
be preserved at any cost; the form, except in special cases, such as poetry, is largely 
secondary, since within each language the rules for relatives content to form are highly 
complex, arbitrary, and variable. It is a bit like packing clothing into two different pieces of 
luggage: the clothes remain the same, but the shape of the suitcases may vary greatly, and 
hence the way in which the clothes are packed must be different. Of course, if by coincidence 
it is possible to convey the same content in the receptor language in a form which closely 
resembles that of the source, so much the better; we preserve the form when we can, but more 
often the form has to be transformed precisely in order to preserve the content. An excessive 
effort to preserve the form inevitably results in a serious loss or distortion of the message.
Obviously in any translation there will be a type of "loss" of semantic content, but the 
process should be designed as to keep this to a minimum. 
Restructuring
Describing the processes of analysis and transfer is much easier than dealing with the 
processes of restructuring, for the latter depends much upon the structures of each individual 
receptor language. Moreover, there are two principal dimensions of such restructuring 
(formal. and functional) which must be fully considered if one is to understand something of 
the implications of this essential procedures.
The first formal dimension requires one to determine the stylistic level at which one 
should aim in the process of restructuring. In general there are three principal alternatives: 
technical, formal and informal (for some literary genres, there are also casual and intimate 
levels of language). Perhaps the greatest mistake is to reproduce formal or informal levels in 
the source language by something which is technical in the receptor language. This is what 
has happened consistently in the translation of Paul's letters to the early churches. Rather than 
sounding like pastoral letters, they have turned out to be highly technical treatises. Such a 
shifting of levels is an almost inevitable consequence of not having thoroughly understood 
the original intent of a message, for when there is any appreciable doubt as to the meaning of 
any message, we almost instinctively react by raising its Literary language level.
The second formal dimension involves the literary genre like epic poetry, proverbs, 
parables, historical narrative, personal letters and ritual hymns. Though languages with long 
literary traditions have much more highly standardized literary genres, even some of the 
seemingly most primitive peoples have quite elaborate forms of oral literature, involving a 
number of distinct types; hence there is much more likelihood of formal correspondence than 
most people imagine. However, the real problems are not in the existence of the 

---

59 
corresponding literary genres, but in the manner in which such diverse forms are regarded by 
the people in question. For example, epic and didactic poetry are very little used in the 
Western World, but in many parts of Asia they are very popular and have much of the same 
value that they possessed in biblical times.
Such poetic forms are often interpreted by persons in the Western world as implying a 
lack of urgency, because poetic forms have become associated with communications which 
are over-estheticized and hence not relevant to the practical events of men's daily lives.
In addition to two formal dimensions in restructuring, one must also reckon with a 
functional, or dynamic dimension, related in many respects to impact. At this point 
especially, the role of the receptor is crucial, for a translation can be judged as adequate only 
if the response of the intended receptor is satisfactory. In order to understand the precise role 
of the receptors, it may be important to restate the basic elements in the translation procedure 
and to describe the role of the critic of a translation. Essentially the translation process is one 
in which a person who knows both the source and the receptors language decodes the 
message of the source language and encodes it into an appropriate equivalent form of the 
receptor language. This procedure may be diagrammatically described as in Figure given 
below. Here Sl, M1 and R1 stand for the source, the message and the receptors (2), the 
original components in the communication event. The squares are designed to reflect the 
linguistic and cultural context of the original communication, in contrast with the circles, 
which represent the different structure of the receptor language into which the translation has 
been made. R2 - S2 is the translator, half square and half circle, as the bilingual intermediary 
of the translation process. M2 is the resulting message and R2 represents the receptors for 
whom the translation is designed. 
In the past, a critic of any translation, R3- S3, was supposed to make a comparison of 
the forms of M1 and M2 on the basis of such a formal comparison, he was supposed to be 
able to determine the validity of M2 as a faithful translation of M 1. (This process of 
comparison is represented in Figure as given below by the dotted lines joining R3-S3 to the 
two messages.) One of the serious difficulties in this procedure has been tendency for the 
critic to know the content of M1 too well. Accordingly, he had little or no difficulty in 
understanding M2, for his familiarity with M1 provided him with the correct answers in any 
case of doubt. As a result, much that was judged to be a satisfactory translation often did not 
make sense to R2, who had no such access to the original message. At present, those engaged 

---

60 
in the analysis of the adequacy of translations have had to shift their viewpoints. No longer is 
it sufficient merely to compare the two forms M1 and M2. Rather, one must determine the 
extent to which the typical receptors of M2 really understand the message in a manner 
substantially equivalent, though never identical, which the manner in which the original 
receptors comprehended the first message (M1) This new approach is symbolized 
diagrammatically by the solid lines leading from the critic R3-S3 to the respective sets of 
receptors:
By focusing proper attention upon the role of the receptors of any: translation, one is 
inevitably led to a somewhat different definition of translation that has been customarily 
employed. This means that one may now define translating as 'reproducing in the receptor 
language the closest natural equivalent of the message of the source language, first in terms 
of meaning and second in terms of style.'
The actual process of translating can be described as a complex use of language; but 
the scientific study of translating can and should be regarded as a branch of comparative 
linguistics, with a dynamic dimension and a focus upon semantics. If the scientific study of 
translation is understood in this light, it is possible that translation could be serve as ,one of 
the best place to test some present day theories about language structure.

---

61