Авторы: 159 А Б В Г Д Е З И Й К Л М Н О П Р С Т У Ф Х Ц Ч Ш Щ Э Ю Я

Книги:  184 А Б В Г Д Е З И Й К Л М Н О П Р С Т У Ф Х Ц Ч Ш Щ Э Ю Я

Matching /mismatching

Matchers respond most strongly to similarities, consistencies, groupings, belongingness.

They are likely to agree with a group or an established opinion, because

discordance feels wrong to them. Matchers define critical thinking as the process

of weeding out things that don't fit: quirky opinions from a body of recognized fact,

novelties in a well-established tradition, radical departures from a generally accepted

trend.

In the field of translation and interpretation, matchers love the concept of

equivalence. For them the entire purpose of translation is achieving equivalence.

The target text must match the source text as fully as possible. Every deviation

from the source text generates anxiety in them, and they want either to fix it, if

they are the translator or an editor, or to attack it, if they are outsiders in the position

of critic.

Mismatchers respond most strongly to dissimilarities, inconsistencies, deviations,

individuality. They are likely to disagree with a group or an established opinion,

because there is something profoundly suspicious about so many people toeing the

same line. Mismatchers define critical thinking as the process of seeking out and

cherishing things that don't fit: quirky opinions in a body of recognized fact, novelties

in a well-established tradition, radical departures from a generally accepted trend.

In the field of translation and interpretation, mismatchers may feel uncomfortable

with the concept of equivalence. It may feel like a straitjacket to them. As a result,

they tend to gravitate toward areas of specialization that allow and even encourage

creative deviation, such as some forms of advertising and poetic translation, or

translating for children. They shun forms of translation in which equivalence is

strictly enforced, such as technical, legal, and medical; and to the extent that they

associate translation theory with the enforcement of equivalence, they may shun

theory as well. When they write translation theory themselves, they tend to ignore

equivalence altogether (see Lefevere 1992) or to reframe it in radical ways: Pym

(1992a), for example, argues that equivalence is an economic concept that never

means an exact match but rather a negotiated equation of two mismatched items,

such as a certain quantity of meat for a certain quantity of money; Robinson (1991)

sees equivalence as a fiction that helps some translators organize their work so as to

turn away from the source text toward the target culture.