General Theory

Translation Studies
 Developed in the second half of the twentieth century which was proposed by the
scholar James Holmes (1972). It pictured translation as a broad discipline shifting
emphasis to neglected areas of translation such as interpreting and translator training.

Pure translation studies

1. Provide a description of the various translation phenomena as these occur.
2. Develop general principles through which these phenomena can be adequately explained.

Descriptive translation studies

1. Focus on three areas of research, namely, product-oriented DTS (text-centered studies
which aim at investigating existing translations), process-oriented DTS (studies which are
primarily interested in the mental processes that occur in translation) and function-oriented
DTS (studies which seek to describe the function of translations in the target sociocultural
situation).

Applied translation studies

1. Mainly concerned with translation training (referring to teaching methods, testing
techniques and curriculum planning), translation aids (referring to IT applications,
dictionaries, translation software, on-line databases and the use of the internet), translation
policy (drawing on the role of both translators and translations in society, as well as on the
place and role of translating in society)

2. It also contributes to translation criticism (mainly addressing issues of revision and

evaluation of translations).

Definition
Translation Studies sees translation as “emerging again and again with different degrees of emphasis in
accordance with differing concepts of language and communication.

Translation generally involves the rendering of a source language text (ST/SL) into a target language text
(TT/TL), so as to ensure that the surface meaning of the two languages will be approximately similar and
the structures of SL will preserved as possible but not so closely to that the TL structures will not be
seriously distorted.

Translation is the process which connects different languages and cultures and in the process of
translation, separate world and cultures are bridged together.

Susan Bassnett, The History of Translation Theory

Translation in Various Fields

Finance -> Financial Translation -> Banking, Financial, Stockmarket interpretation
Science -> Scientific Translation -> scientific research and documents relating to said area

Law -> Legal/Juridical/Judicial Translation -> court judgements, case interpretations, court proceedings

Medicine -> Medical Translation -> health care, pharmaceutical products, medical product,
biotechnology

Literature as in Literary translation -> translates the language of the original text to a target language.

-> Widely regarded as the most difficult type of translation

Translation vs. Interpretation (which is which?)

They are used interchangeably. When the practice of translation is utilized for communicative
purpose or spoken language, the practice is generally called interpretation while translation
refers to the written language. However, in various medium texts and discourses, there are
several instances where the boundaries between the spoken and written are blurred. Despite
such contrasts, both practices have the same aim, which is to bridge the ST and TT for the
understanding of readers/audience.

FIDELITY (FAITHFULNESS) VS. TRANSPARENCY (IMPRESSION)

TRANSLATABILITY VS. UNTRANSLATABILITY

EQUIVALENCE
Equivalence is the expression from a language that has the same meaning as, or can be used in a
similar context to, one from another language, and can be used to translate it.
Important Concepts and Classifications of Translation
Cicero and Horace
 Word-for-word translation is done by translating each word separately, without looking at how
the words are used together in a phrase or sentence. It should be noted that the Greek
equivalent for translation is “metaphrasis,” which denotes on bringing a language to another
language, word for word.

 Sense for sense translation means translating the meaning of each whole sentence before
moving on to the next. In 16-17th century, the English poet and translator, John Dryden, refers
to the latin term paraphrase to describe sense for sense.

Throughout history, translators and translation historians have mentioned the two terms, but
the theoretical discourse as to the reliability of the two methods can be traced to two Latin
proponents, Cicero the orator and Horace the poet.

Both proponents favor the sense for sense translation. Horace and Cicero’s argument from the
time of antiquity re-emerge centuries later.

Dryden (1680)
 Dryden’s classifies translation into three types: metaphrase, paraphrase, and imitation.
 Imitation—not to be confused with Mimesis—was something Dryden cautioned as it departs
from the syntactic and semantic value of the source text. Another term that is loosely equated
with Dryden’s imitation is adaptation.

Vinay and Darbelnet (1958)

 They distinguished between direct and oblique translation. When translating directly, the
translator utilizes the following procedures: Borrowing, Calque, Literal translation. On the other
hand, oblique translation utilizes Transposition, Modulation, Equivalence, and Adaptation.

 They further argued that equivalence as a procedure in which the same situation is replicated
as in the original but different wording is used. Through this procedure, it is claimed that the
stylistic impact of the SL text can be maintained in the TT. When dealing with proverbs, idioms
and clichés, equivalence for them is sought at the level of sense and not image.

 They concluded the situation is what determines the need for creating equivalences. So
translators are encouraged to firstly look in the situation of the ST in order to come up with a
solution.

Jakobson (1959)
 Jakobson claims three kinds of translation:
o Intra-lingual (rewording) - interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs in the
same language from one shape into another. (Example: trans. from Old English to
Modern English)

o Inter-lingual (translation proper) - interpretation of verbal signs from one language into
another. (Example: trans. of the New Testament of the Holy Bible (koine Greek) to any
language)
 o Inter-semiotic (transmutation) – interpretation of verbal signs by means of of non-
verbal signs. (Example: Verbal art—poetry, novel, short story, etc.—into music, cinema
or painting)

 He stressed that there is no full equivalence between two words. (For example: The English
cheese and its Russian equivalent syr may refer to cheese, but they have different concepts).

 Like Vinay and Darbelnet, Jakobson recognized that translation is possible despite cultural or
grammatical differences.

Nida and Taber (1969)

 Nida and Taber stressed that in analysing the ST, the translator goes through the stages of
grammar, meaning, and connotation.

 In the pursuit of equivalence, Nida and Taber stressed two types of equivalence: formal
equivalence and dynamic/functional equivalence.

o Formal equivalence: the TT resembles the ST in terms of form and content. The TT is
oriented towards the ST structure. Its weakness, however, assumes familiarity of ST on
part of the reader.

o Dynamic/Functional equivalence: an effort is made to convey the ST in the TT as

naturally as possible. It also applies adaptations grammar, lexical, and cultural
reference.

 The proponents placed emphasis on dynamic/functional equivalence, especially when the ST

expresses idiomatic expressions, cultural markers, and so forth.

Catford (1965)
 Focused on shifts in translation, which refer to the changes that take place during the translation
process.

 More specifically, Catford describes very broad types of translation according to three criteria.
Firstly, full translation is contrasted with partial translation which differs according to the extent
of translation. Secondly, total translation differs from restricted translation according to the
levels of language involved in translation, and, thirdly, Catford distinguishes between rank-
bound translation and unbounded translation, depending on the grammatical or phonological
rank at which equivalence is established.

 Catford (1965) defines them as departures from formal correspondence when translating from
the SL to the TL (p. 73). Moreover, he maintains that there are two main types of translation
shifts, that is, level shifts (where an SL item at one linguistic level, for example grammar, has a TL
equivalent at a different level, for instance lexis) and category shifts, which are divided into (a)
structure-shifts involving change in grammatical structure, (b) unit-shifts involving changes in
rank, (c) class-shifts involving changes in class, and (d) intra-system shifts which occur internally
 when source and target language systems share the same constitution but a non-corresponding
term in the TL is selected when translating.

Koller (1979)
In particular, correspondence involves the comparison of two language systems where differences and
similarities are described contrastively, whereas equivalence deals with equivalent items in specific ST-
TT pairs and contexts.

Koller (1979) distinguishes five different types of equivalence: (a) denotative equivalence involving the
extralinguistic content of a text, (b) connotative equivalence relating to lexical choices, (c) text-
normative equivalence relating to text-types, (d) pragmatic equivalence involving the receiver of the text
or message, and, finally, (e) formal equivalence relating to the form and aesthetics of the text

Newmark (1981)
More specifically, Newmark replaces Nida.s terms of formal and dynamic equivalence with semantic and
communicative translation respectively. The major difference between the two types of translation
proposed by Newmark is that semantic translation focuses on meaning whereas communicative
translation concentrates on effect.

Semantic translation looks back at the ST and tries to retain its characteristics as much as possible. Its
nature is more complex, detailed and there is also a tendency to over-translate.

communicative translation looks towards the needs of the addressees, thus trying to satisfy them as
much as possible. In this respect, communicative translation tends to under-translate; to be smoother,
more direct and easier to read.

Newmark (1981) strongly believes that literal translation is the best approach in both semantic and
communicative translation (p. 39). However, he is careful to note that when there is a conflict between
the two forms of translation, then communicative translation should be favoured in order to avoid
producing an abnormal, odd-sounding or semantically inaccurate result

Baker (1992)
Equivalence is a relative notion because it is influenced by a variety of linguistic and cultural factors.

grammatical, textual and pragmatic equivalence

Grammatical equivalence refers to the diversity of grammatical categories across languages and the
difficulty of finding an equivalent term in the TT due to the variety of grammatical rules across languages

The translator may be forced to add or delete information in the TT because of the lack of specific
grammatical categories. Some of the major categories that often pose problems for translators are
number, voice, person, gender, tense and aspect.

Textual equivalence refers to equivalence that may be achieved between a ST and TT in terms of
cohesion and information. Baker argues that the feature of texture is of immense importance for the
translators since it facilitates their comprehension and analysis of the ST and helps them to produce a
cohesive and coherent text in the TL.
Baker argues that the term implicature is used to refer to what is implied and not to literal meaning. In
other words, the focus of interest is not on what is explicitly said but what is intended or implied in a
given context.

The primary aim of the translator should be to recreate the intended message of the SL in such a way
so that it becomes accessible and comprehensible to the target audience

Pym (2010)
There is no such thing as perfect equivalence between languages and it is always assumed equivalence.
In particular, for Pym (2010) equivalence is a relation of “equal value” between an ST segment and a TT segment
and can be established on any linguistic level from form to function

distinguish between natural and directional equivalence. Natural equivalence exists between languages prior to
the act of translating, and, secondly, it is not affected by directionality (p. 7).

On the other hand, theories of directional equivalence give the translator the freedom to choose between several
translation strategies which are not dictated by the ST. Although there are usually many ways of translating, the
strategies for directional equivalence are reduced into two opposing poles; one adhering to SL norms and the
other to TL norms. Perhaps, the most important assumption of directional equivalence is that it involves some kind
of assymetry since when translating one way and creating an equivalent does not imply the creation of the same
equivalent when translating another way