Contemporary Theories of Translation

Contemporary Translation Theories: An Overview

According to Roman Jakobson, translation activity is mainly of three types.

1. Intralingual translation It is rewording, that is an interpretation of verbal
signs by means of other signs in the same language.
2. Interlingual translationIt is known as translation proper. It involves an
interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language. For example,
interlingual translation is from Oriya to Bangla, English etc.
3. Intersemiotic translationIt is called transmutation in which verbal signs
are interpreted by means of non-verbal sign systems. For example, intersemiotic
translation is from verbal art into music, dance, cinema or painting.
Here we are concerned with interlingual translation that is translation proper.
During the pre-linguistic period of writing on translation, starting from Cicero through
St. Jerome, Luther, Dryden, Tytler, Herder, Goethe, Schleirmacher, Buber to Ortega Y
Gasset stressed either on literal or free, faithful or beautiful, exact or natural
translation, depending on whether the translation favoured the author or the reader, the
source or the target language of the text. Until the nineteenth century literal translation
was mainly a philological academic exercise and cultural reformers tried to save
literature from it. In the nineteenth century, more scientific approach to translation
developed. It laid down that certain types of texts must be accurately translated, while
others should or could not be translated at all.

The main trends during 1900 to1930s in translation theory are rooted in German
literary and philosophical traditions, in Romanticism, hermeneutics and existential
phenomenology. According to these, language is not so much communicative as
constitutive in its representation of thought and realty. So in this period translation
activity is regarded as an interpretation, which inevitably transforms the foreign text.
(Venuti, 11)
The basic assumption in this development is the autonomous status of translation
as a text in its own right. Though it is derived from the source text, it is independent as
a work of signification. According to Walter Benjamin (1923), a translation

244
participates in the afterlife (Uberleben) of the foreign text. This interpretation not
only transmits message, but also recreates the values that accrued to the foreign text
over time. The linguistic differences of the ST (Source Text) and TT (Translated Text)
convey a philosophical concept, pure language, which means how the mutually
exclusive differences among languages co-exist with complementary intentions to
communicate and to refer. Benjamin states that translation offered a utopian vision of
linguistic harmony. The pure language is released in the translation through
literalisms, especially in syntax which result in departures from current standard
usage.

Ezra Pound states that the autonomy of translation can be divided into two
types. A translated text might be interpretative. It might be a critical
accompaniment, printed next to the foreign poem and compo,sed of linguistic
peculiarities that direct the reader across the page to foreign textual features, like a
lexical choice or a prosodic effect. Secondly, a translation might be original writing,
in which literary standards in the translating culture guide the rewriting of the
foreign poem so decisively as to seem a new poem in that language. The relation
between the two texts does not disappear; it is covered by an illusion of originality,
although in target language terms (Pound, 26-33).

In the early twentieth century translation theory and practice have two agenda
(Venuti, 12) On the one hand, translation has a formalist interest in technique which is
expressed as innovative translation strategies that match new interpretations of foreign
texts. On the contrary, translation is marked by strong function. Translation projects
are yoked to cultural and political practices

In 1931, Hilaire Belloc rejects stylistically innovative translations but stands for a
social function for translating. According to Belloc, any hint of foreignness in the
translated version is a blemish, because the social importance of translation is to
preserve our cultural unity in the west (Belloc, 13). Towards the end of the 1930s
Jose Ortega Y Gasset, a Spanish philosopher holds translation as a distinct linguistic

245
practice with its own norms and its own ends. He holds that translation is impossible
because of irreducible linguistic and cultural differences. He advocates that the
splendor of translation lies in its manipulation of these differences to force the
reader from'his linguistic habits and oblige him to move within those of the (foreign)
author. For Ortega, translating is useful in challenging the complacencies of
contemporary culture as it fosters a historical consciousness which is not found in
the mathematical and physical sciences (Gasset, 49-63).
During 1940s and 1950s the basic question of translatability dominates
translation theory. Important figures in spheres of philosophy, literary criticism, and
linguistics all consider whether translation can reconcile differentiating elements
between languages and cultures (Venuti, 67). Linguistics addresses the issue of
translatability by analyzing particular problems of translating and describing the
methods that translators have developed to solve them (Venuti, 69).
According to Vladimir Nabokov, form and content of a text are inseparable
and so, a good translation should render both as best it can .In 1958, Canadian
linguists Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet hold translation as a procedure which
replicates the .same situation as in the original, whilst using completely different
wording (Vinay and Darbelnet, 342). They view that Equivalence, of messages
ultimately relies upon an identity of situations, where situations indicates an
undefined reality. They state that the translator should think of meaning as a cultural
construction and see a close connection between linguistic procedures and
metalinguistic information, namely the current state of literature, science, politics
etc. of both language communities (Vinay and Darbelnet, 342). Their argument is
that if this procedure of equivalence is applied in translating, the stylistic impact of the
SL (Source Language) text can be maintained in the TL (Target Language) text. Vinay
and Darbelnet consider equivalence as the ideal method for the translator who deals
with proverbs, idioms, cliches, nominal or adjectival phrases and the onomatopoeia of
animal sounds.
Roman Jakobsons theory (1959) is based on semiotic approach to translation.
This theory holds that the translator has to recode the ST (Source Text) message first
and s/he has to transmit it into an equivalent message for the TC (Target Culture).

246
Jakobsons translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes. So
equivalence in difference is the main problem of language and the central concern of
linguistics (Jakobson 114 ). He holds that the translator may face the problem of not
finding a translation equivalent because of lack of grammatical device, but this does
riot mean that a translation is impossible .He states that Whenever there is deficiency,
terminology may be qualified and amplified by loan-words or loan-translations,
neologisms or semantic shifts and finally, by circumlocutions (ibid. 115). He holds
that where there no literal equivalent for a particular ST word or sentence; then it is up
to the translator to choose the most suitable way to render it in the TT;;
In 1959, Reuben Brower brings together the main trends in commentary on
translation in his anthology. Here, translation is regarded as a problem of language and
Culture and linguists, literary critics and philosophers agree on this point (Venuti, 70).

During 1960s and 1970s, the concept of equivalence is central to most

translation theory. Translating is considered as a process of communicating the
foreign text by establishing a relationship of identity or analogy with it (Venuti, 121).
An opposition is drawn between pragmatic equivalence and formal equivalence in
translating. Pragmatic equivalence is immediately known to the receptor whereas the
goal of formal equivalence is to approximate the linguistic and cultural features of the
foreign text. Pragmatic equivalence expresses the foreign text following the values in
the receiving culture so that the very fact of translation is not revealed. Formal
equivalence, on the other hand, closely follows the linguistic and cultural values of the
foreign text ,so that the translation is known as translation. This equivalence theory not
only provides analytical tools to describe translation, but provides standards to
evaluate them as well.

In 1964, Eugene Nida, the famous American trarislator of the: Bible, tries to
achieve equivalence with the help of Chomskys generative grammar. Nidas
methodology involves going from the surface of the source text to its'deep structure,
and to transfer that deep structure to the deep structure of the target language, so that
the surface structure of the target language can be generated. He states that the deep

247
structure of one language can be transferred to the deep structure of another language
by an empathy of spirit. He distinguishes two types of equivalence: formal
equivalence, which is called formal correspondence by Nida and Taber in the
second edition in 1982, and dynamic equivalence. Formal correspondence focuses
attention on the message itself, in both form and content, whereas dynamic
equivalence is based upon the principle of equivalent effect (1964: 159). Formal
correspondence puts emphasis on closest equivalence of SL word or phrase in TL.
According to Nida and Taber, formal equivalents between language pairs are not
always found. They emphasize that these formal equivalents are to be used wherever
possible if the translators goal is to achieve formal rather than dynamic equivalence.
Dynamic equivalence is a translation principle in which a translator translates the
meaning of the ST in such a way that the TT produces equal effect on the TC audience
as the ST did upon the ST audience.

Nida emphasizes on dynamic equivalence as a more effective translation

procedure. He aims at clearly expressing the message of the ST in the TT, that is, its
semantic quality, though he uses a linguistic approach to translation.

J .C. Catfords (1965) approach to translation is based on the linguistic work

of Firth and Halliday. Linguistics like Mounin and Catford assume that universals
bridge linguistic and cultural differences. Catford states that Translation equivalence
occurs when a SL (source-language) and a TL (target-language) text or item are
relatable to (at least some of) the same features of substance where substance
can signify a relatively fixed range of linguistic features levels and categories, and a
potentially infinite series of cultural situations ( Catford, 50 ). He introduces the
concept of shifts between the source text and translated texts which, he defines as
departures from formal correspondence, in the process of going from the SL to TL
(Catford, 73). He states that there are two main types of shifts: one is level shift, where
the SL item at one linguistic level ( e .g. grammar ) has a TL equivalent at a different
level (e.g.,lexis ) , and second one is category shifts which are divided into four types,
these are structure-shifts, class-shifts, unit-shifts and intra-system shifts. According to

248
Catford, these shifts are essential to establish equivalence between the source text
and translated text.

Katharina Reiss (1971) stands for the functionally equivalent translation,

requiring a detailed semantic, syntactic and pragmatic analysis of the foreign text.
According to her, the pragmatic translator analyses the linguistic and cultural features
of the text and also reverbalizes them according to the values of a different language
and culture, applying Julian Houses filter so that the receptor can comprehend the
differences (Reiss, 160-171).

In 1977, Peter Newmark gives a theory of translation based on equivalence

which is similar to E. Nidas theory. Newmark divides translating into two types:
communicative and semantic .For Newmark, Communicative translation attempts to
produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of
the original. Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and
syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the
original (Newmark, 39). He further states that in case of conflict between the two
procedures, in the context of interlingual transfer communicative translation must
stress force, not the content of the message. At the same time Newmark states that
these two procedures are overlapping.

The science of translation developed by Nida and Catford are based on the
concept of deep/surface structure and are source-oriented. Their theories assume that
the deep structure contains the necessary information which can be encoded in another
language and the translator needs to be faithful to it. It is unscientific and this
approach is transcendental and utopian which views translation as reproducing the
original text. Apart from that, this approach is evaluative and prescriptive (Gentzler,
72).
In 1970s, some scholars in Belgium, the Netherlands and Israel revealed the
drawbacks of the science of translation. Following Russian Formalists, younger,
scholars from Belgium and the Netherlands, James Holmes, Raymond Van den

249
 Broeck and Andre Lefevere avoided deep-structure argument given by Nida and oh
the other hand, looked at actual texts and specific features of texts . These scholars
emphasize on the process of reception of the translation in the target language, and the
context in which translation acquires meaning and significance:'They take into:
Consideration actual translated text as they appear in a given culture.

, According to Holmes, the translation does not refer to the same object in the
real world to which the source text refers , but rather to a linguistic formulation
( Gentzler, 90). Holmes puts emphasison the process of translation. He states that
translation involves making decision out of a number of possibilities. After the
translator makes the first choice, the translation generates its own laws and makes ;
further choices. For the first time Holmes introduces subjective decisions and
accidents in the theory of translation (Gentzler, 95). ,

Lefevere uses the terminology used by Eugene Nida. He holds that the
translator should translate the source text and the original authors interpretation of a
given theme expressed in a number of variations by substituting all variations by
, their equivalents in the target language (Gentzler, 94).

. Van den Broeck avoids traditional theoretical terminology of translation. He

bases his theory of equivalence upon the semiotics of Charles Sanders Pierce, the
philosophy of Charles Stevenson, and the linguistics of J .C. Catford. He advocates
with Lefevere that the original authors intention and the original texts function can
be determined and translated by a methodology of typologizing and topicalizing so
that the translated text will possess equivalent literary value and function of the
source text (Broeck, 98).

Later in 1970s, Itamer Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury of the Tel Aviv school
.developed the concept of literary polysystem which provided an insight into the
complete process and dynamics of a translated text in a particular culture at a
particular point of time (Sinha, 251-56). Following the Russian Formalist, Tynjanov,

250
Even-Zohar considers translation as an important sub-system of any literary system
and focuses his attention on the analysis of the hierarchical cultural system as a whole.
For Even-Zohar, polysystem stands for the entire network of correlated systems-
literary and extra-literary-in society, and developed an approach to explain the
function of all kinds of writing within a given culturefrom the central canonical text
to the most marginal non-canonical texts (Even-Zohar, 261). He holds that the role of
any translated text in a particular language depends upon the age, strength and stability
of the particular literary polysystem. Even-Zohar holds that the body of translated
literature is a system in its own right and it exits in varying relationships with original
compositions. Both, occupy whether central or peripheral positions in literary
systems and both perform either innovative or conservatory literary functions. A
minor literature, that means, literature which is minor in relation to longer and more
richly developed literary traditions, may give translation a central role in stirring
innovation. On the other hand, in a major literature, translation may receive a
peripheral role and adhere to norms rejected by original writing (Even-Zohar, 192-97).

Gideon Toury holds that the goal of translation is not faithfulness to the
source text, but to achieve a translation acceptable to the target culture. He states that
translations themselves have no fixed identity; since they are always subject to
various socio-literary contextual factors. So translations should be considered as
having multiple identities, depending upon the forces governing the decision
process at a particular time (Gentzler, 128). For Toury, translation is a relative term
which depends upon the forces of history and the semiotic web called culture
(Gentzler, 129). Toury shows that the adequacy of a translation to the source text
depends on the adherence to source norms, whereas its acceptability in the target
culture is determined by subscription to norms originating in the target culture. Even
the most adequacy-oriented translation requires shifts from the source text and any
determination of adequacy, even the identification of a source text and a translation,
involves the application of a target norm (Venuti, 123).

251
 In 1975, George Steiner advocates a literary and philosophical approach to
translation opposing modern linguistics. He regards translation as a hermeneutic
notion which is represented by an act of appropriation and assimilation that finishes
*

with the hermeneutic'act of restoring balance by manifesting the qualities of the

original work (Meo, 216).

Susan Bassnetts Translation Studies (1980) inaugurates the emergence of

translation studies as a separate discipline, overlapping with Linguistics, literary
criticism and philosophy. It also explores problems of cross-cultural communication.
In spite of differences in conceptual and methodological approaches of semiotics,
discourse analysis , and poststructuralist textual theory , these agree that translation is
an independent form of writing , distinct from the foreign text and from texts
originally written in the translating language. (Venuti, 215)

In 1982, Andre Lefevere redefines the concepts of literary system and norm
pioneered by Even-Zohar and Toury. He treats translation as a form of refraction or
rewriting, which carries a work of literature over from one system into another
and it is determined by factors like patronage, poetics and ideology. He states
that translation makes a compromise between two systems (Lefevere 237). He further
holds that translation and adaptation are the only ways to approach foreign literature,
which would otherwise remain inaccessible. In 1990, Lefevere asserts that the study
of all literary texts within any given culture can also be a study of manipulation
(Gentzler, 190). In 1985, Theo Hermans also asserts that all translations can be taken
as forms of manipulation of text.

As a result of the influence of post structuralism on psychoanalysis, Marxism

and feminism, theorists become more aware of the hierarchies and exclusions in
language use and focus on the ideological effects of translation, to the economic and
political interests served by its representations of foreign texts (Venuti, 219).

252
 Lori Chamberlain (1988) points to the gender metaphors recurring in leading
translation theorists since the seventeenth century and throws light on the gigantic
extent to which patriarchal model of authority has underscored the subordinate status
of the translation. She throws light on the powerful metaphors of translation as a
woman, inferior and marginal to the original author, and a man / son where the text is
the woman that is penetrated by the translator in order to usurp the role of the author.
She asserts how a feminist concern with gender identities might be useful for
translation studies, particularly in recovering forgotten translating women and also in
a
translation projects that are sensitive to ideologically coded foreign writing, whether
feminist or masculinity. (Chamberlain, 219)

The rise of post structuralism makes language a site of uncontrollable

polysemy and the most influential theory of translation is given by Jacques Derrida,
the pioneer of deconstruction theory. He assumes that language itself is an endless
chain of meanings that cannot come to any fixed, final position. He coins the term
differance for this which means that words are defined by their difference from other
words and final meaning is always differential and deffered as each word leads us on
to another word in the signifying system. Differance also includes difference,
divergence, delay and deferral of meaning and reference. As a result, the text can
never be coherent or stable. So Derrida holds that there can be no equivalence in the
translation process. According to him there is no kernel or deep structure or
original text or author as the translator creates the original in the process of
deconstructing the text. He holds that each reading or translation of a text recreates the
source text and hence there can be no source and target texts or language and
meaning. He also negates the notion of underlying forms independent of language.
As language speaks itself, listening for the unheard, the ungraspable - that which is
there and yet is not there, lost in that space between signified and the signifier.
(Gentzler, 167)

253
 Derrida holds that it is impossible to transport pure signifieds from one language
into another and within the same language, as the base meaning is unstable and there
can never be any deep structure or kernel. So he does not accept the definition of
translation as transporting, reproducing, representing or communicating the meaning
of the original (Gentzler, 163). He uses the term regulated transformation instead of
translation (Gentzler, 168).

Following Walter Benjamins concept of Uberleben, the survival of language,

Derrida states how translation modifies or supplements the original (Gentzler, 163).
Like Benjamin, he asserts that the task of the translator is to insure the survival of
language and by extension, the survival of life (Gentzler, 164). Both Derrida and
Benjamin believe that the original always contains another structure or form which
is a stage, for future survival, even if the text itself is never .translated and the
structure never visible or completed or unified. According to Derrida translation puts
the writer in touch with Benjamins concept of pure language. He points at the
interdependence between writing and translating since productive and reproductive
moments can be recognized in translation.
This approach breaks down the power of the transcendental signified and
makes unnecessary the evaluation of translations in terms of their closeness to pure
equivalence (Gentzler, 169).
Finally, in the 1990s, translation studies gains authority as part of the
academia because of worldwide proliferation of training of translators and scholarly
publications relating to translation. It achieves more and more strength as it is
interrelated to other discourses like polysystem, feminism, post structuralism,
computerized corpora, discourse analysis, globalization, etc. Emergence of cultural
studies stresses on the social effects of translation and their ethical and political
consequences and it is related to cultural and political questions.

This decade puts emphasis on social effects of translation and their ethical
and political consequences. Here translated text and translation processes are linked to
cultural and political issues. Translation is regarded not only as linguistic phenomena,

254
but also as cultural phenomena. In eighties Jose Lambert and Clem Robyns view
translation less as an interlinguistic process and more as an intercultural activity
(Gentzler, 186). According to them translation not only takes place between fixed
languages and national literatures, but between any type of competing or varying
discourses (Gentzler, 186). Mary Snell-Hornby suggests that translation scholars
should give up their scientistic attitude and shift from text as a translation unit to
culture. Lefevere and Bassnett also argue that Translation Studies scholars should
not only deal with texts and / or repertories of texts in historical paradigms, but also
with those institutions which influence their production (Gentzler, 188).

In a series of lectures delivered in 1991 at the annual summer research

seminar held at the University of Leuven, Susan Bassnett suggested that a slight
opening in cultural hegemony was. about to occur. She viewed that poet-translator
Harold and Augusto de Campos from Brazil, use Derrida to develop something like a
post-modern and non-Eurocentric approach to translation. The de Campos brothers
view translation as a form of transgression, where there is no preordained original
in the source text.

For them, translation is a form of cannibalism, which means a liberating

form, one which eats, digests, and frees oneself from the original (Bassnett, 192). So
translation is regarded as an empowering and nourishing act, an act of affirmative play
which is close to the Benjamin / Derrida position of viewing translation as a life-force
that ensures the survival of a literary text (Bassnett, 192). Translation as a form of
cannibalism is inspired by Love and reverence for a foreign culture (Bassnett, 192).
According to Bassnett, the de Campos brothers theory of translation, in this manner,
does away with the traditional concept of faithful / free translation, avoids a sense of
loss and participates in a positive act of affirmation, of pleasure and ofjoy.

In 1999, Susan Bassnett and Harish Trivedi explore the close relationship
existing between the process of translation and colonization. For centuries, translation
was a one-way process, which asserted the supremacy of the dominant European

255
culture. In this process texts were translated into European languages for European
consumption.
There was no reciprocal process of exchange in translation. European norms
dominated literary production and only certain types of books came to be translated.
Translation into European languages, that is, the dominant linguistic and cultural
system, is regarded to continue the colonizing process.
The period of early colonial expansion coincided with the invention of the
idea of the original or the source text. Europe was regarded as the great Original,
the starting point, and the colonies as only copies or translations of Europe. As
copies, translations were considered as less than originals. Susan Bassnett and Harish
Trivedi explore this relationship of the Original / Colonizer and translations /
copies / colonies in the context of Quebec and Brazil. In Quebec, the culture of native
people encounters the French colonists and the conquest of the British. It is also
exposed to North American culture and the influence of immigrants from across the
world. So there is continuous interaction between languages in the pluralistic French-
speaking society of Quebec. Here the invasion of English threatens the very survival
of French. As Sherry Simon points out, the contemporary post-colonial cultures are
nurtured not in conservation, but in the values of discontinuity, friction and
multiplicity (Chira, 221). In the context of Brazil, Haroldo de Campos states that it
does not deny foreign influences, but swallows, absorbs and transforms them,
constantly recreating the traditions inherited (Chira, 222). This is an attempt to
interrupt mental colonialism through a process of assimilating western cultures into
the native culture. In this context, Andre Lefevere explores the process of
familiarization and domestication involved in every act of translation!

Sujit Mukherjee (1981) puts emphasis on translation of more and more Indian
literature into English as a link literature in the multi-cultural and multi-lingual
context of India. He states that adequate translation of different Indian languages into
English will not only create greater awareness of literary achievements of each
language, but also lead to betterment of our creative as well as critical activities
through a meaningful and sustained critical exchange ... among the languages (18).

256
He puts emphasis on the induction of more Indo - English literature, that is,
translation of Indian literature into English in our curriculum in order to widen the
literary culture of our school and college - going youth and make them aware of the
magnitude of our literary heritage (Mukherjee, 43 ).
According to him a literary text is discovered in the process of translation as well as
in the reading of the translation. It is more so in the context of India where the student
of literature often commands more than one language (Mukherjee, 140).

Problem of Evaluating the Quality of a Translation

Traditionally different views have been expressed by professional translators,

philologists, and poets for assessing the quality of a translation. In this respect, views
expressed by Theodore Savory, Forster and Eugene Nida are inadequate. .The problem
is that equivalent responses to source and translation texts advocated by Nida cannot
be measured. Similarly, it is impossible to establish equivalent writers intention.
Juliane House gives a model which is based on pragmatic theories of language use in
order to assess the quality of a translated text. She states that TT should have a
function - - comprising an ideational and interpersonal functional component which
is equivalent to STs function. The function of a text can be characterized by
determining the situational dimensions of the ST. She adapts her model of
situational dimension from Crystal and Davys model suggested and elaborated in
1969. The translator should find out the particular situation in which the source text is
embedded. Then only a translation can be evaluated, according to House. The basic
principle of functional match for translation equivalence is that a translation text
should not only match its source text in function, but also employ equivalent
situational-dimensional means to achieve that function. By this method a particular
textual profile is obtained for the source text. This profile characterizes the function
of that text and is the norm against which the quality of the translation text is to be
measured. The degree to which the translation texts textual profile does not match the
source texts profile is the degree to which that translation text is inadequate in quality.

257
 Juliane House distinguishes between two types of translation: overt and
covert. When ST is connected to source-culture and has independent status in the
source language community, an overt translation is required. A covert translation is
that which enjoys or enjoyed the status of an original ST in the target culture. A covert
translation is not particularly linked to the SL community and culture. For instance,
the commercial text, the scientific text, the journalistic article. According to House,
overt translation makes impossible to achieve strict functional equivalence because of
the uniqueness of cultural-historical context, and their non-transferability from the
source language to the target language (House, 193). Here a second level function
is needed as a criterion for adequate translation. The major difficulty of overt
translation is the finding of linguistic-cultural equivalents on the language user
dimensions (House, 206). However, it is possible to achieve functional equivalence in
cases of covert translations. But, covert translation presents more difficult and subtle
cultural transference and evaluation problems than the overt translation. Because a
covert translation requires the translator to take different cultural presuppositions in
the two language communities into account and to put a cultural filter (House, 196)
between ST and TT. In other words, he has to view ST through the glasses of a target
culture member, (House, 197). The unjustified application of such a cultural filter
results in the production of a covert version. It is to be differentiated from an overt
version which results from the addition of a special, secondary function to TT. As
there is no completed linguistic-cultural comparative study till date, the evaluation of
these two types of translations and versions inevitably involve a subjective,
hermeneutic element.

Works Cited
Books
Bassnett, Susan, and Harish Trivedi, ed. Postcolonial Translation: Theory and
Practice. London and New York: Routledge, 1998.
Catford, J.C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. 2nd
Ed. London: Oxford UP, 1967.

258
Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories. London and New York:
Routledge, 1993.
House, Juliane. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tubingen: TBL Verlag
Gunter Narr, 1977.
Mukherjee, Sujit. Translation as Discovery. 2nd Ed. Hyderabad: Orient Longman,
1994.
Newmark, Peter. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981.
Nida, Eugene A. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1964.
Nida, Eugene A. and C.R.Taber. The Theory and Practice of Tanslation. Leiden:
E.J.Brill, 1982.
Venuti, Lawrence, ed. The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York:
Routledge, 2000.
Vinay, J.P., and J. Darbelnet. Comparative Stylistics of French and English:
A Methodology for Translation. Trans and eds. J.C.Sagar and M.J.Hamel, Amsterdam:
Benjamins, 1995.

Articles
Benjamin, Walter. The Task of the Translator. Trans. Harry Zohn. The Translation
Studies Reader. Ed.Lawrence Venuti. London and New York : Routledge, 2000. 15-
25.
Chamberlain, Lori . Gender and the Metaphorics of Translation. The Translation
Studies Reader. Ed.Lawrence Venuti. London and New York : Routledge, 2000. 314-
329.
Chira, Marina De. Review of Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and Practice, eds.
Susan Bassnett and Harish Trivedi. Anglistica 5.1-2(2001): 220-222.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary
Polysystem. The Translation Studies Reader. Ed. Lawrence Venuti. London and New
York : Routledge, 2000. 192-197.
Frawley, William. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Translation. The Translation
Studies Reader. Ed. Lawrence Venuti. London and New York : Routledge, 2000. 250-
263.

259
Jakobson, Roman. On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. The Translation Studies
Reader. Ed. Lawrence Venuti. London and New York : Routledge, 2000. 113-18.
Lefevere, Andre . Mother Courages Cucumbers : Text, System and Refraction in a
Theory of Literature. The Translation Studies Reader. Ed. Lawrence Venuti. London
and New York: Routledge, 2000. 233-249.
Meo, Mariagrazia De. Rethinking the Theory and Practice of Translation: A Review
Essay. Anglistica 5.1 -2(2001): 211-19.
Ortega Y Gasset, J. The Misery and the Splendor of Translation. The Translation
Studies Reader. Ed.Lawrence Venuti. London and New York : Routledge, 2000. 49-
63.
Pound, Ezra. Guidos Relations. The Translation Studies Reader. Ed. Lawrence
Venuti. London and New York : Routledge, 2000. 26-32.
Reiss, Katharina. Type, .Kind and Individuality of Text. Trans. Susan Kitron. The
Translation Studies Reader. Ed. Lawrence Venuti. London and New York :
Routledge, 2000. 160-171.

260