Luận văn tiếng Anh:A translation quality assessment of the Vietnamese phiên bản of Part 7 "Nightmare" in the nover "Twilight" using J. House's model = Đánh giá chất lượng bản dịch tiếng Việt phần 7 "Cơn ác mộng" trong cuốn tiểu thuyết "Chạng vạng" áp dụng mô hình của J. House. M.A Thesis Linguistics: 60 22 15
INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale for the study…………………………………………
2. Scope and objectives of the study …………………………….
3. Research methodology…………………………………………
4. Organization of the study………………………………………
Chapter 1 – LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Translation theory…………………………………………….
1.1.1. What is translation?.......................................................
1.1.2. Translation procedures, strategies and methods………
1.1.3. Translation equivalence ………………………...……
1.1.4. Cultural factor in translation………………………….
1.1.5. Text types……………………………………………..
1.1.6. Two types of translation………………………………
1.2. Literary Translation…………………………………………...
1.2.1. General characteristics of Literary Language………...
1.2.2. Problems of literary translation ………………………
1.3. Views and models for translation quality assessment………
7
Chapter 2 – APPLICATION OF HOUSE’S MODEL FOR
TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT
2.1.Overview of the model ………………………………………...
2.2. Summary of the original text‘s content ……………………….
2.3. Analysis of the original text based on J. House‘s model……..
2.3.1. Features of the Source Text in the light of Halliday‘s
functional grammar………………………………………….
2.3.2. Analysis of Source Text based on House‘s model……
Chapter 3 – DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
3.1. Source Text and Translation Text comparison and statement
of quality…………………………………………………………..
3.2. Implications for literary translation…………………………..
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
5. An assessment of the likely place of the translation in the target language culture or
discipline
1.3.4. Juliane House’s functional-pragmatic approach
Juliane House (1977) is in favour of semantic and pragmatic equivalence and argues
that ST and TT should match one another in function. The scholar suggests that it is possible
to characterize the function of a text by determining the situational dimensions of the ST. In
fact, according to her theory, every text is in itself is placed within a particular situation which
has to be correctly identified and taken into account by the translator. If the ST and the TT
differ substantially on situational features, then they are not functionally equivalent, and the
translation is not of a high quality. In fact, she acknowledges that a translation text should not
only match its source text in function, but employ equivalent situational-dimensional means to
achieve that function.
Juliane House gives a model for TQA which is based on pragmatic theories of
language. This model attempts to avoid anecdotalism, reductionism, programmatic statements
and intuitively implausible one-sided considerations of the ST and TT alone. In this model,
there is an analysis of linguistic-situational particularities of the source and target texts, a
comparison of the two texts, and an assessment of their relative match. The basic requirement
for equivalence is that the translation should have a function (consisting of an ideational and
an interpersonal functional component) which is equivalent to that of the original, and should
also employ equivalent pragmatic means for achieving that function. An initial analysis of the
original according to a set of situational dimensions for which linguistic correlates are
established will be made. Then, there will be a comparison of both the original‘s and the
translation‘s textual profiles and functions. In this comparison, some mismatches will occur.
There are two kinds of mismatches: Dimensional mismatches (pragmatic errors that have to do
with language users and language use), and Non-dimensional mismatches (in the denotative
meanings of original and translation elements and breaches of the target language system at
various levels). The final qualitative judgment consists of a listing of both types of errors and
of a statement of the relative match of the two functional components In short, when having a look at all the four above models, it is clear that the three first
models still contains some limitations. In Nida and Taber‘s model, all the tests and criteria
suggested by these two scholars seem unfruitful. This can be explained by the two limitations:
the limited goal of establishing ease of comprehension and degree of intelligibility; and the
lack of reference to the source text. Whereas Koller‘s model appeared to be more proper when
he points to the necessity of developing a comprehensive, linguistic model of translation
quality assessment. But Koller does not go beyond a very general outline with no suggestions
for operationalization. And criteria that the transferability of a text based have not been
mentioned in his model. Concerning P. Newmark‘s model, all five topics to criticized a text
are clear. However, all these five criteria rather lean towards the translator/interpreter‘s
experiences only. As a result, this model seems to be more proper for the
translators/interpreters who have a lot of experiences in translating/interpreting but less
knowledge in translation theory. For the last model – House‘s model, all criteria in translation
quality assessment are specific and adequate with eight situational dimensions. In fact, it is a
functional- pragmatic model relating to semantic aspect, pragmatic aspect and textual aspect.
Hence, from the researcher‘s point of view, House‘s model is suitable for linguistic
researchers in general, and for this project in particular. CHAPTER 2 – APPLICATION OF HOUSE’S MODEL FOR
TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT
2.1 Overview of the model
Juliane House (1976) defines translation as the process of preservation of meaning
across two languages. She defines function of the language or function of the text as the
application or use which the text has in the context of a situation. In order to reach the textual
or linguistic function, linguistic evidence should be broken in to its components. Basing on
Hallidayan system –functional theory, the scholar proposes a model for assessing translation.
It is a functional- pragmatic model which is related to semantic aspect, pragmatic aspect and
textual aspect. It considers both equivalence and function, then these notions were mixed to be
used as a functional equivalence which is going to match target text equivalence both
semantically and pragmatically. In this model, the cultural filter is a device by which the
cultural differences is going to be verified and mitigated.
Because the function of a text is to be characterized through referring the text to the
situation in which it is embedded, House‘s model refers to specific situational dimensions
which are grouped into two sections: Dimensions of Language User and Dimensions of
Language Use.
A. Dimensions of Language User:
1. Geographical origin (regional dialect)
2. Social class (social class dialect)
3. Time (feature which provides clues to a text‘s temporal
provenance)
B. Dimensions of Language Use:
1. Medium (simple, complex)
2. Participation (simple, complex) 3. Social role relationship: the relationship between addresser and
addressees (symmetrical and asymmetrical role relationship)
4. Social attitude: the degrees of social distance or proximity:
frozen, formal, consultative, casual and ultimate
5. Province: the field or topic of the text in its widest sense of ―area
of operation‖ of the language activity, and details if the text
production as far as these deducted from the text its self.
In Language User, three situational dimensions are introduced. They all refer to the
features which mark the provenance of a text producer.
In Language Use, Juliane House introduces five situational dimensions whereby the
source and translation texts will be analyzed. The dimension Medium can be simple or
complex. The text possesses Complex Medium if its language is ―written to be spoken‖, with
possible further sub-classification, or Simple Medium if its language stays within one category,
for example, ―spoken to be heard‖ or ―written to be read‖. For the second dimension,
Participation may be simple or complex. However, it is inclined to complex even if the text‘s
form is a monologue or a dialogue. Regarding the third dimension, the role relationships
which are divided into symmetrical and asymmetrical ones are between addresser and
addressees. The former is characterized by solidarity and equality between addresser and
addressees, whereas the latter is marked by some kind of an authority relationship between
addresser and addressees. Concerning the addresser, the relatively permanent Position Role
and the more transient Situational Role are also employed. Under the fourth dimension -
Social Attitude, the degrees of social distance or proximity are described. To make it clearer,
this dimension uses five styles of formality: frozen, formal, consultative, casual, and intimate.
The last dimension Province does not only reflect occupational and professional activity, but
also the field or topic of the text in its widest sense of ―area of operation‖ of the language
activity, as well as details of the text production as far as these can be deduced from the text
itself.
In addition, the syntactic, lexical, and textual means are employed to describe each of
the situational dimensions above. In the analysis and comparison between two textual profiles,
House‘s model also applies Halliday‘s ideational and interpersonal terms; makes use of the
convention of expressing the components of meaning by means of feature symbols such as


oIcbOF59XWkgwgr

---