Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
1. Defining Basic Terminology
2
Cataract, Elephantine, where inscriptions in two languages
have been found;
- written texts of bilingual treatises between the Hittites and
Egypt; the Egyptian Pharaohs employed translators and
interpreters whose skill was handed down from generation
to generation;
- the first European translator ever mentioned by literary
histories was Livius Andronicus who about 240 B.C.
translated the Odyssey into Latin, followed by other poets
and translators: Naevius, Ennius, Catullus, etc.;
- in the 12th century the West came into contact with Islam
in Moorish Spain. Owing to two essential conditionsa
qualitative difference in culture (the West was inferior but
scientifically acquisitive and receptive to new ideas) and the
continuous contact between two languageslarge-scale
translation was favored mostly after the collapse of
Moorish supremacy in Spain: the Toledo school of
translators translated Arabic versions of Greek scientific
and philosophic classics;
- Luthers Bible translation in 1522 laid the foundations of
the modern German Bible inasmuch as the King James
Bible of 1611 exerted a seminal influence on English
language and literature;
- other significant periods of translation were that of
Shakespeare, of French classicism and the Romantic
Movements.
3
that the translator must be either an interpreter or a
rhetorician;
- the classical essays of St. Jerome (400 A.D.), Martin Luther
(1530), John Dryden (1684) all favor colloquial and natural
renderings;
- then Alexander Fraser Tytler wrote the first significant
book on translation in 1790, stating that a good
translation is one in which the merit of the original work is
so completely transfused into another language as to be as
distinctly apprehended and as strongly felt by a native of
the country to which that language belongs as it is by those
who speak the language of the original work;
- the nineteenth-century essays by Goethe (1813-14),
Humboldt (1816), Novalis (1796), Schleiermacher (1813)
Schopenhauer (1851) and Nietzsche (1882) inclined
towards more literal translation methods, while Matthew
Arnold favored a simple, direct, and noble style;
- in the twentieth century, Benedetto Croce (1922), Ortega y
Gasset (1937) and Paul Valry questioned the possibility of
adequate translation, particularly of poetry. ] 1
II. international communication depended heavily, and still
does, on translation.
[Georges Mounin in Linguistique et Traduction (1976) states that, so
far, research in ethnology has not been able to name a people or an
ethnic group which should not have resorted to interpreting by
means of a bilingual speaker, whenever contact with another people
or another ethnic group was needed.]
Whereas in the nineteenth century translation and the attempts
at theorizing were mainly a one-way means of communication
between prominent men of letters, in the twentieth century, the new
developments in the field of linguistics, sociolinguistics,
sociosemantics, semiotics, literary and non-literary criticism have
4 Apud Roger T. Bell, Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. (Harlow:
Longman, 1991), p. 5.
5 Susan Bassnett, Translation Studies. (London and New York: Routledge, 1991), p.
2.
7
generally require that the images have the same significance,
or, more realistically, as nearly the same significance as we can
get. Interlingual translation can be defined as the
replacement of elements of one language, the domain of
translation, by equivalent elements of another language,
the range. 6
2. J. C. Catford: the replacement of textual material in one
language by equivalent textual material in another language. 7
3. Hartmann and Storck: the replacement of a representation
of a text in one language by a representation of an equivalent
text in a second language. 8
4. Boguslaw Lawendowski: the transfer of meaning from
one set of language signs to another set of language signs. 9
5. Nida and Taber: reproducing in the receptor language the
closest natural equivalent to the message of the source
language, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of
style. 10 [This latter definition, introducing the idea of closest
natural equivalent, implies the idea of PARAPHRASE,
which John Dryden had favored as the most appropriate
method of translating as early as 1680: translation with
latitude, where the author is kept in view by the translator,
so as never to be lost, but his words are not so strictly
followed as his sense.]
Sebeok (ed.), Sight, Sound and Sense. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978),
p. 267.
10 Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation.
11
- the major requirement is that all factual information contained
in the original text must be retained in the translation.
In fact, translation has three meanings and we can envisage
three possible theories depending on the focus of the investigation.
One is process-oriented, denoting the process. (It is a theory of
translating which requires a study of information processing.
Being based heavily on psychology and psycholinguistics, it deals
with topics like: perception, meaning, encoding and decoding of
messages, etc.)
The other is product-oriented and denotes the product. (It is a
theory of translated texts which requires a study of texts by
means of linguistic analysis and stylistics and which makes
use of the recent advances in text-linguistics and discourse
analysis.)
The third denotes the abstract concept, referring to both the
activity and the entity. (This abstract concept becomes the
main object of interest of the general theory of translation,
which must attempt to describe and explain both the process
and the product. The process is both mental and physical. It is
mental as it takes place in the mind of the translator, and it is
physical as it involves language, the transfer of the SL text into
the TL text within a broader cultural context.)
The present situation, however, as Roger T. Bell sees it, is
one in which translation theory has, for the most part, concentrated
on the product to the exclusion of the process and has adopted a
normative attitude to it by making inferences back to it through the
description and evaluation of the product. 16
Since 1965, great progress has been made in Translation
Studies. The work of scholars in the Netherlands, Israel, the former
Czechoslovakia, the former Soviet Union, the former GDR, and the
United States has brought about clearly defined Schools of
Translation. On the other hand, Translation Studies has been
exploring new ground, bridging the gap between stylistics, literary
18 George Steiner, After Babel. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), p. 45.
19 Roman Jakobson, apud Mark Shuttelworth and Moira Cowie, Dictionary of
Translation Studies. (ST Jerome Publishing, 1999), p. 87.
20 By his definition of translation [to translate is to replace the formulation of a
16
to linguistic knowledgeas he has to cling to words,
collocations, structures, and emphasesand literary capacity,
he must also add sympathy, insight, diligence, and
conscientiousness 24 ;
he must select and then use the translation method best
suited to the type of text;
he must establish the hierarchy of the values to be preserved
in the translation;
before embarking upon the actual translation activity he
must perform a syntactic analysis of the SL text and, once
the basic structures have been transferred into the TL, he
must rework the TT in order to reach dynamic equivalence;
he must always avoid any personal opinion or subjective
judgment with reference to the SL text;
he must have the courage to employ unconventional, daring
and archaic terms;
he must be acquainted with the socio-cultural background of
the original writer and his work;
his translation must be fairly close to the original;
he must select the right stylistic level and, last but not least,
he needs a great amount of experience.
24 See Theodore Savory, The Art of Translation. (Boston: The Writer, Inc., 1968), p.
35-36.
17
repugnant, because the original author almost never has an
opportunity to repudiate it. 25
1984), p. 18.
26
George Steiner, After, op.cit., p. 73-4.
18
unit contains in itself a set of nontransferable elements, associations
and connotations, worth mentioning at this point is J. C. Catfords
classification of translation based on the levels of language analysis
(extent, levels, and ranks).
From the point of view of the extent, Catford distinguishes
between FULL and PARTIAL translation. In a full translation the
whole text is translated; every part of the SL text will be replaced by
TL material and, consequently, the TT will contain no SL elements
at all, whether we deal with single text items or longer passages.
In a partial translation, parts of the SL text are left
untranslated; very often they are transferred to and incorporated into
the TL text, either because they are considered untranslatable or
for the sake of creating local color, of introducing an SL flavor
into the TL text. Eventually, however, these items will inevitably
acquire new contextual meanings in the TL. As illustration of this,
Catford cites the example of the Russian word sputnik, which, as a
foreign borrowing, in English is understood differently (Russian
artificial satellite) from the way it is used in Russian, i.e. has a
translation equivalent in a number of lexical sets: fellow-traveler,
companion, satellite, artificial satellite. Now embedded in an English text,
sputnik has acquired an English formal and contextual meaning. 27
From the point of view of the levels, Catford opposes
TOTAL to RESTRICTED translation. The total translation is
what is generally meant by translation, i.e. when all levels of the SL
text are replaced by TL material. In other words, equivalent TL
grammar and lexis replace SL grammar and lexis, whereas non-
equivalent TL phonology and graphology replace SL phonology and
graphology. It is only SL grammar and lexis which is directly
replaced by equivalent TL material; the replacement on phonological
and graphological level occurs concomitantly via non-equivalent TL
material. Exceptions, however, will be found in film dubbing or the
translation of poetry, where TT graphology or phonology is
sometimes partially equivalent to that of the ST.
27
J. C. Catford, A Linguistic Theory op.cit., p. 47.
19
By restricted translation, Catford means replacement of SL
text material by equivalent TL text material at only one level of the
four: phonology, graphology, grammar or lexis.
As to rank in grammatical hierarchy (low-rank:
morpheme-to-morpheme and word-to-word, and high-rank: group-
to-group, clause-to-clause, and sentence-to-sentence) Catford
opposes RANK-BOUND to UNBOUNDED translation.
With former, the rank-bound translation, the selection of
TL equivalents is deliberately confined to one rank (or a few ranks,
low in the rank-scale) in the hierarchy of grammatical units, 28 i.e.
the translator will always tray to select TL equivalents at the same
rank. For example, in machine translations equivalences may be
established at word-for-word or morpheme-to-morpheme rank, but
not a high-rank level, i.e. group of words, clauses or sentences.
By unbounded translation, J. C. Catford denotes a type of
total translation in which equivalences shift freely up and down the
rank scale, in other words, a SL grammatical unit of a certain size
may be rendered by a TL equivalent of a different size.
In conclusion, if, starting from Catfords classification, we
were to define three frequently used types of translationfree, word-
for-word, and literalthe FREE translation will always be an
unbounded one, the WORD-FOR-WORD will be a rank-bound
translation (at word level, without observing any grammar rules: I
have read the book will be translated into German Ich habe gelesen das
Buch.), whereas the LITERAL translation lies between the two
extremes. It may start at word-for-word level, but it will observe TL
grammar, namely additional words may be inserted, structures may
be changed in conformity with TL grammar. (I have read the book
will be translated as Ich habe das Buch gelesen thus observing German
word order.)
Having reached this point, worth mentioning is the fact that
both above-mentioned classifications (Jakobsons and Catfords),
like others, are centered on achieving translation equivalence, a
28 Ibid , p. 24,
20
term used to describe the nature and the extent of the relationships
between SL and TL texts, somehow the interlingual counterpart
of intralingual synonymy. In fact, we are dealing with a
polysemous word, the precise meaning of which varying from one
theoretician to another. Nowadays, to reduce translation equivalence
to something quantifiable, on the one hand, and translation, on the
other hand, to the mere replacement of textual material in one
language by suitable textual material in another language, i.e. to a
simple linguistic exercise, is no longer acceptable, because cultural,
textual, and other factors have gradually started to play an essential
role in translation. This perception has triggered distinctive
classifications in the issue of equivalence. Here are some:
1. Nida (and Taber, too,) distinguishes between dynamic and
formal equivalence. Dynamic equivalence occurs when the message
of the SL text has been so transported into the TL that the response
of the TL receptor will be essentially like that of the SL receptor. A
well-known example of a dynamically equivalent translation is the
decision to render the Biblical phrase Lamb of God into an
Eskimo language as Seal of God. The fact that lambs are
unknown in Polar Regions has led to the substitution of a culturally
meaningful item. Despite argumentation in favor or against it, the
notion of dynamic equivalence is especially relevant to Bible
translation, given the particular need of Biblical translations to both
inform readers with a relevant message and elicit a response from
them.
In the course of time, the initial term of dynamic equivalence
will be gradually replaced by functional equivalence, a new term less
open to misinterpretation and which serves to highlight the
communicative functions of translating, i.e. the function of the SL
text is adapted in order to suit the specific context in and for which
it was produced. Later developments in Translation Studies agree
upon the fact that the function a text has to fulfill has apparently
become now the most widely accepted frame of reference for
translation equivalence. However, problems remain in the case of
texts that possess more than one function.
21
Formal equivalence, also proposed in the context of Bible
translation, refers to the translation in which the features of the form
have been mechanically reproduced in the TL. In this case the
translator allows the ST speak in its own terms rather than
attempting to adjust it to the circumstances of the target culture. In
practice, this means using rather formal than functional equivalents
wherever possible, not joining or splitting sentences, and preserving
punctuation marks and paragraph breaks. 29 Formal equivalents
should be used wherever possible, if the translation aims at achieving
formal rather than dynamic equivalence. The use of formal
equivalents might, at times, may have serious implications in the TT,
since the target audience will not easily understand the translation.
On the other hand, a translation exclusively based on this form of
equivalence practically distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns
of the TL and, hence, the message. For this reason it is necessary to
accompany the translated text by explanatory notes. Nevertheless,
formal equivalence is sometimes the most appropriate strategy for
translating Biblical and other sacred texts; it is also useful in back-
translation or when the translator may for some reason be unwilling
to accept responsibility for changing the wording of the TT.
However, Nida and Taber admit that dynamic and formal
equivalence should be viewed as general orientation rather than an
absolute technique, so that between these two extremes there are
any numbers of grades, which represent acceptable methods of
translation. 30 Despite all the above-mentioned limitations, the
general tendency towards formal equivalence seems to be triggered
by the translators/interpreters concern for accuracy and his
preference for retaining the SL wording whenever possible.
29 Eugene Nida, Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and
Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964), p. 165.
30 Ibid , op.cit., p. 160.
22
portion of text which is observed on a particular occasion . . . to be
the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text. It can be
identified either on the authority of a competent bilingual
informant or translator or by means of commutation, or changing
items in ST and observing what changes if any occur in the TL text
as a consequence. 31
Formal correspondence is a theoretical, systemic category that
is established on the basis of a formal comparison between the SL
and the TL. It exists when a TL category can be found which
occupies the same place in the economy of the TL as the given
SL category occupies in the SL. 32 However, on the other hand,
Catford argues that formal correspondence is nearly always
approximate, owing to the inevitable compatibles existing between
the systems of the two languages.
24
in a given text in order to denote equivalence on the level of
structure, form, and shape.
Last but not least, we believe that a synopsis of the factors that
condition equivalence is worth mentioning here. We believe the
following to be of utmost importance:
39 Leon Levichi, ndrumar pentru traductorii din limba englez n limba romn.
32
3. Translation Methods: Communicative vs.
Semantic Translation
41 Ibid., p. 51.
42 Ibid., p. 51.
34
translation becomes the bridging of both the time and the space, its
overall function being to produce in the minds of the TL readers
the same emotions as those produced by the original in the
minds of the SL readers. 43
In the pre-linguistics period of translation theory, which may
be said to stretch from Cicero through St. Jerome, Luther, Dryden,
Tytler, Goethe, Schleiermacher, Ortega y Gasset, and Savory,
opinion moved to and fro between the literal, faithful and exact
translation and the free, beautiful and natural one, depending on
whether the preference was either for the author and the SL text or
for the reader and the TL text. Moreover, up to the nineteenth
century, literal translation was also viewed as a philological academic
exercise and activity. In fact, most of these pre-linguistics opinions
were to a great extent anticipated and synthesized by Alexander
Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee, in The Principles of Translation
the first systematic study in English of the translation processwho
in 1791 enunciated three basic principles, which are still valid
nowadays, as they stipulate a balance between form and content, a
blending of the future communicative and semantic approaches:
1. the translation should give a complete transcript of the
idea of the original work;
2. the style and manner of writing should be of the same
character with that of the original;
3. the translation should have all the ease of the original
composition. 44
Gradually, in the nineteenth century a more scientific
approach crystallized and theorists started to admit the existence of
two opposite and apparently irreconcilable tendencies:
a) when texts that are meant to inform the reader effectively
and appropriately (non-literary culture) should be
translated more freely in order to produce upon the TL
37
Far, far more than their numbers, it was the tanks, the planes
and the tactics of the Germans that caused us to retreat. It was the
tanks, the planes and the tactics of the Germans that took our
leaders by surprise and thus brought them to the state they are
today . . .
For France is not alone! She is not alone! She is not alone!
46 See Lawrence Venuti, The Translators Invisibility. (London: Routledge, 1995), pp.
15-20.
47 Ibid, pp. 19-34.
48 Peter Newmark, Approaches, op.cit., p. 53.
40
4. Text-types and Translation Procedures
45
one of the intrinsic functions of language is to please the senses both
through its actual or imagined sound-effects as well as through its
metaphors. Onomatopoeia, alliteration, assonance, rhyme, meter,
intonation, stress, all play an important role in the production of
sound-effects, inasmuch as rhythm, balance and contrasts of
sentences, clauses and words. Unlike the expressive textpoetry,
in particularwhere the translator is literally torn between the
reproduction of either the expressive or the aesthetic function of the
ST (ugly literal vs. beautiful free translation), with multi-medial
texts, the translator has to ensure that the TT is equally suited as the
ST for use in the relevant medium. Hence, with the multi-medial
text rich in sound-effects, the translator will have to focus on their
reproduction, even if this implies transfer of relevant language units,
because sound-effects are more important than the sense. The
multi-medial text rich in original metaphor, on the other hand, has
to be preserved intact in translation, because the metaphor is both
an expressive and an aesthetic component.
Judging now by the subject matter on which texts focus, i.e.
the opposition singular denotative vs. multiple recursive and
connotative meaning, the Swiss linguist Werner Koller distinguishes
only two major text-categories: (1) fictional texts (Fiktivtexte),
which are the product of fantasy and focus mainly on society and
individuals, i.e. literary texts in which subject matter and form are
meant to make a whole unit and serve an aesthetic-oriented
communication, and (2) factual texts (Sachtexte), which are
concerned with reality and focus mainly on objects, i.e. pragmatic
texts (an extremely heterogeneous class of texts) meant to serve a
specialist-oriented communication based on technical jargon. 59
Once the text-category and then the text-type have been
identified and before embarking on the actual translation process,
the next step that the translator is supposed to undertake would be
the selection of the appropriate translation method and procedure
__________________________________ 60
50
E) Adaptation (on the communicative level), the opposite of
the word-for-word translation, refers to any TT in which a
particularly free translation strategy/procedure has been adopted.
Since it is a reader-oriented translation, adaptation implies that
during the translation process a considerable amount of changes
have been brought to the original text, i.e. a re-writing/re-wording of
it has occurred, in order to make the text more suitable for
consumption by a specific audience (e.g. children), or to highlight a
particular purpose behind the translation. Generally, theorists agree
on the fact that adaptation cannot be considered a faithful
translation, that it is rather a type of pseudotranslation. Vinay and
Darbelnet describe adaptation as a type of oblique translation,
which means that it does not rely on the existence of structural and
conceptual parallels between SL and TL, in other words, we can
resort to this strategy/procedure whenever the situation referred to
in the ST does not actually exist in the target culture. Then, a kind of
situational equivalence must be achieved, namely ST elements will
be replaced by TL items, which in some way serve the same
function, and so become equivalent. For example, a reference to
cricket as a popular sport in England could be replaced in a French
translation by a reference to the Tour de France. 66
66See Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet, Comparative Stylistics of French and English:
A Methodology for Translation. (Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 1995, pp. 31-39.
51
opinion, for instance, free translation is nothing but a paraphrase
much longer than the original, a so-called intralingual translation,
often prolix and pretentious, and not translation at all. 67
A) Psychological factors
A translator will always think and talk about translation from inside
the translation process, obviously knowing how it is done. He
processes the real-world problems involved by providing solutions
to those problems. However, the dedicated and conscientious
translator will be fully aware of the limitations on those solutions, as
he/she knows from his/her own experience that no translation will
ever be a perfectly reliable guide to the original.
76 Ibid., p. 132.
77 Ibid., p. 133.
62
To be accurate, one translates words that are used in context,
that is, words that are lexically conditioned and constrained
by collocation and connotation, grammatically by syntax,
intonationally by word-order, sometimes phonetically by
assonance, alliteration, onomatopoeia, and moreover they are
normally referentially; one does not translate words in
isolation, or assume they are being used in their primary
sense, unless they appear randomly. 78
Translation has also been defined as an interlingual transfer of
significance that is exclusively based on choice. Practice shows us
that, on the one hand, the greater the difference in lexis and
grammar between the SL and the TL, the greater the choice the
translator has to face and, on the other hand, the stronger the
cognitive or representational function in the SL text, the lesser the
degree of choice. Moreover, the better the translator understands the
linguistic meaning of a text, the less choice the translator has in
selecting and formulating his words. Contrary, however, the more
difficult the meaning, the more variations (and variants) are likely to
appear. Consequently, the better a translator understands the
referential meaning, the easier it is for him/her to transfer it into the
TL and, the more obscure the referential meaning, the more the
translator has to hold on to the SL words.
All good translators have to meet three basic requirements
obligatorily set in this order: thorough knowledge of their own
language, of the subject and of the target language. Any flaws in the
first prerequisite are likely to generate gross mistakes in the second
and the third.
A good and reliable translation depends on the right selection
of the appropriate method of translation. Theorists generally agree
on three basic translation procedures:
a) the interpretation and analysis of the SL text;
b) translation procedures which are either direct, or based
on SL and TL corresponding syntactic structures, or
78 Ibid., p. 135.
63
through the tertium comparationis (an underlying logical
interlanguage); 79
c) the reformulation of the text in keeping with the original
writers intention, the prevailing TL norms, the cultural-
educational structure of the readership the translated text is
targeted at, the readers expectation, etc. 80
83 See Andrei Banta and Elena Croitoru, Didactica traducerii. (Bucuresti: Teora,
1998), p. 57-9 and Elena Croitoru, Interpretation and Translation. (Galai: Porto-
Franco, 1996), pp. 121-2.
84 Roger T. Bell, Translation, op.cit., p.45.
66
at sentence level: the constitutive clauses and the governing
relationships;
at clause level: the grammatical structures and the underlying
phrases;
at phrase level: the fundamental m h q structures (modifier,
head word, qualifier) and
at word level: the lexical items.
Once this analysis is over, the sentence/clause can continue
through the process to the next step, that of identifying and then
matching lexical items. If, by chance, the identified lexical items can
be matched with items already stored in the translators memory, it
exits the syntactic stage and enters that of semantic processing.
However, this is only the default route. Otherwise, if no matching
can be achieved, the translator must make increased efforts to
comprehend the content of the text, to make sense of the lexical
items that cannot be matched with those already stored in his
memory.
B) Once the meaning of the unknown lexical items has been grasped
(with the help of mainly monolingual dictionaries, thesauruses and
the co-text), the translator proceeds to the semantic analysis of the
text, namely he/she attempts to derive the content from the
syntactic structures supplied by the previous stage of analysis. In
doing so, the translator tries to make out what the particular segment
of text is about; what it represents; the logical relationships between
participants, processes, attributes and circumstances (the semantic
framework for any type of situation or pattern of experience
expressed with the help of language); ideational meaning and
propositional content, etc. In other words, by this analysis the
translator must discover what the process is which is being carried
out (it might be also a relationship rather than a genuine action),
who the participants are (both actor and acted-upon) and how they
67
relate to each other in the process. 85 Now that this investigation has
also been completed, the translator can move on to the third stage
of the text analysis, that of the pragmatic level.
The last level of the analysis having been thus completed, the
translator can now proceed to the stage of synthesis, but in a
reversed order, i.e. the processing of the text in the TL begins at
pragmatic level. According to Roger T. Bell, once all the SL
information has been thoroughly analyzed, the translator has to
make important decisions first, as to what to preserve and what
to change, before embarking upon the TL processing of the text
(the actual translation process):
(a) How to deal with the purpose of the original. The
translator may wish to attempt to preserve this or to
alter it. Either way, a decision has to be made on how
to express purpose through the available content or
assuming that the translators plan includes a decision
to shift any of the parameters (e.g. to turn an
informative text into a polemical one), through
different content.
86 Ibid. p. 58.
69
6. add or to omit words, phrases, that is to interfere with the SL
text or to transfer everything faithfully from the source to
the target text. 87
74