Thank you for the video! I am writing an essay about the translation of humor. Can I find the sources of this video anywhere? I am looking for the source where Dina talks about Formal and Dynamic Equivalence
Thank you a lot for sharing useful knowledge, Prof. Jason. However, can you help me explain more about "the rarity" mentioned at the end of the video cause I do not get that point well. I am looking forward your reply. Thank you so much!
sir, shouldn't vocative functions be classified as formal and expressive functions as dynamic instead of the other way around? would appreciate some clarification on that!
Peter Newmark, Approaches to Translation, p. 132, mentions this in passing, when discussing dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. Cognitive equivalence would be equivalence at the level of content. He really sees the following levels of equivalence: 1) Response/Effect (dynamic), 2) Form/syntax (formal), 3) content (cognitive), 4) Language function (here he references Buhler's framework)
Watching from Turkey, my major is translation and interpretation English to Turkish and you helped a lot thank you❤️
Thank you for the video! I am writing an essay about the translation of humor. Can I find the sources of this video anywhere? I am looking for the source where Dina talks about Formal and Dynamic Equivalence
Thank you a lot for sharing useful knowledge, Prof. Jason. However, can you help me explain more about "the rarity" mentioned at the end of the video cause I do not get that point well. I am looking forward your reply. Thank you so much!
sir, shouldn't vocative functions be classified as formal and expressive functions as dynamic instead of the other way around? would appreciate some clarification on that!
can you please talk about unstransalability? thank you
Sir, want to know more about Cognitive Equivalence for referencing purpose. Please suggest a book.
Peter Newmark, Approaches to Translation, p. 132, mentions this in passing, when discussing dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. Cognitive equivalence would be equivalence at the level of content. He really sees the following levels of equivalence: 1) Response/Effect (dynamic), 2) Form/syntax (formal), 3) content (cognitive), 4) Language function (here he references Buhler's framework)
Why we need equivalence?
I need someone to explain to me the Holmes and Toury map 😭😭😭😭😭💔
Thanks à lot 💕
Why i chose this profession 😢😂😅 thank you for video
Thank you
💯💯
nice
informative
sir
Thank you