Translation Theory.

1. Periods of the translation theory development.

Definition: documentary vs instrumental translation; illocution, perlocution, locution. Катя
Рибовалова

Periods of the translation theory development.

As an academic discipline translation theory was elaborated comparatively recently, in the
second half of the 20th century. Yet seminal ideas on the nature of translation and methods of
translating had been repeatedly expressed in the previous epochs, at least since the 1st
century BC.
George Steiner in his monograph with the symbolic title After Babel outlines 4 periods of the
theory, practice and history of translation: 1) from Cicero’s principle “sense for sense versus
verse for verse translation” up to the publication of Alexander Tytler’s Essay on the
Principles of Translation (1791) – pre-theoretical stage when ideas on translation were shaped
by translators themselves in prefaces, commentaries, sometimes even in the poetic form (e.g.
Horace); 2) to the 40s of the 20th c. – first tentative attempts to elaborate the metalanguage of
translation theory and apply hermeneutic methodology to understanding the nature of
translation; 3) from the 40s to 60s of the 20s c. – the introduction of structural linguistics and
communication theory into the study of translation; 4) from the 60s of the 20th c. –
translation at the interface with other philological and scientific disciplines. As Steiner’s
periods do not cover the 21st c. it is possible to add a new tendency: to view translation
within the framework of philosophical, in particular, phenomenological trends.
The preliminary stage of the development of translation theory had its key hallmarks in the
following cultural epochs:
1) Ancient Rome. As translations were done from Greek, the language understood by
educated Romans, the task of translators was more aesthetic than pragmatic: to develop
Roman literature and show that borrowed ideas can be better expressed in Latin. The
governing tendency was to reshape Greek texts according to Roman literary norms and
cultural principles. As S. Bassnett aptly said: Translation then was an exercise in comparative
stylistics.
2) Middle Ages. Translations were scarce as prestigious languages (Greek and Latin)
prevailed in church and education. If religious and philosophical texts contained
commentaries in a vernacular tongue, they were as literal as possible to avoid accusations in
violating sacred words. Mistranslations resulting from the tendency to render the first
meaning of a word reverberated in the cultural images up to the 20th c.; e.g. horns (instead of
halo) of Michelangelo’s Moses borrowed by Ivan Franko in his poem Moses. Unlike
religious text, medieval secular literature often freely used foreign topics, so calls wandering
plots, and transplanted them onto the new ground.
3) Reformation that was not only the religious but also translation movement encouraged the
development of national languages and decline of Latin. The idea of “dominion by grace”
implied free access to the communication with God, i.e. the possibility to read the Bible in
the believer’s tongue. Bible translators of the 16th century (Martin Luther in Germany, John
Wicliffe in England) tried to correct errors resulting from the literal approach in the previous
versions and produce a comprehensible and aesthetically satisfying text. Martin Luther in the
preface to his Bible (1534) indicated that “to translate” for him meant “to Germanize” (to
domesticate, in general terms). An emblematic figure of the time was Etienne Dolet, who
expressed the demand of the new epoch in a separate article (1540 “How to translate well
from one language into another”) and was executed for implementing his principles of
digressing from word-for-word approach into practice (alleged mistranslation of a Plato’s
dialogue evoking doubts in the immaculate conception).
4) Classicism established the free mode of translation as the borrowing of ancient models and
motifs and changing realia. This tendency was openly formulated by the British author and
translator John Dryden (1680) who on describing metaphrase as a literal translation and
imitation as an unduly free one, spoke in favour of paraphrase as translation with some
latitude.
5) The didactic undercurrent of Enlightenment can be traced in the clash of opinions of
German / Swiss scholars (mid 18th c): Johann Gottsched and his Leipzig circle and his Swiss
antagonists Johann Bodmer and Johann Breitinger. Gottshed supported the idea that
translators are obliged to correct imperfections of the original as a good translation should
correspond to the rule of normative poetics. Breitinger preceded Humboldt in his claim that
the mentality of the nation is reflected in its language, therefore there are no superfluous
words in the original that can be left out in translation. The concise summery of 19 centuries
of developing ideas on translation and translating is provided in Tytler’s essay: 1) the
translator should give a complete transcript of the idea of the original; 2) the style and manner
should have the same character as the original; 3) translation should have the same ease as the
original.
6) The Romantic concept of translation was stipulated by hermeneutic methodology and the
keen interest of the epoch to other cultures and languages in all their strangeness and
specificity. The conflicting views of Romanticists on translation were expressed by August
Wilgelm Schlegel (1810) who translated 13 plays of Shakespeare: The original is a living
organism, all the details of which should be preserved in the translation. However, the
translation should be read with ease and naturalness as if it had been written in the target
language. Most important work on translation at that period is the article by Friedrich
Schleiermacher On different methods of translating (1813) where two methods of translation
were differentiated: “alienation” (foreignizing) and “naturalization” (domestication). The
chosen method depends on the genre of the text: texts with factual language (business-related
texts) are easily translatable because of terminological constraints; poetic and philosophical
texts with the flow of time accumulate culture-bound concepts, feelings, attitudes that are
language specific and can be rendered only be alienating method that implies: 1) literal
translating ; 2) artificial language somewhere between the two languages involved where the
special feeling of the original is rendered through strangeness (sublanguage).
The concept of the world literature was introduced be Goethe who discriminated three phases
of translation: 1) acquaints us with foreign countries in our own terms (Luther’s Bible),
domesticated and simplified prose translation; 2) the assimilation of foreign ideas and
feelings, appropriation through substitution and reproduction (French classicism); 3) perfect
identity between the original and translation that combines the uniqueness of the original with
a new form and structure.
In the Victorian England seemingly impossible blending of foreignizing and domestication
approaches resulted in the archaizing principle, conveying the remoteness of time and
language through the use of a mock antique tongue. Mathew Arnold in his article On
translating Homer (1860) claimed: since Homer is classic the translation should use the
language of the British undoubted classical text King James Bible. Contrary to this, Edward
Fitzerald who was the first to acquaint the British reader with Persian poetry in the preface
defends his right for extreme freedom of translation treating original authors as “not poets
enough”.
These random views on translation defined either as “the art”, “the craft” or as “principles”
had been paving the way for approaching translation theory that was to establish itself in the
20th century.

Documentary translation: “serves as a document of a SC communication between the author

and ST recipient”. The reader is well-aware that it is translation. E.g. literary tr., literal tr.,
“exoticising tr.”
Instrumental translation: “serves as an independent message-transmitting instrument in a
new communicative action in the TC, and is intended to fulfill its communication purpose
without the recipient being conscious of reading a text which in a different form was used in
other communicative situation’. TR reads the TT as though it was written in the TL. E.g.
computer manual (function-preserving translation). Tr. for children (the function is not
preserved)
Illocution - An act of speaking or writing which in itself effects or constitutes the intended
action, e.g. ordering, warning, or promising.
Perlocution - An act of speaking or writing which has an action as its aim but which in itself
does not effect or constitute the action, for example persuading or convincing.
Locution - a particular form of expression or a peculiarity of phrasing
especially : a word or expression characteristic of a region, group, or cultural level.

2. Theory of turns in Ts S.
Definition: semiotic approach to translation, covert vs overt translation. Вероніка Дубина

3. Linguistic turn. E. Nida.

Definition: inferential model of translation, utterance vs sentence. Іра Пацула

4. Pragmatic translation problems: speech acts theory.

Definition: patronage, deep structure vs surface structure. Оленка Зіньків

5. Functional approach to translation. Skopos theory. Theory of functional loyalty.

Definition: refracted text, science of translation. Юля Родак, Катя Поляк

In functionalism, the translation strategy should not be determined by the text itself or the
translator himself/herself, but should be mainly decided by the purpose of the translation and
the function of texts and translation. This purpose-oriented approach to translation is one of
the central ideas of functionalist theory.

“Functionalism” means focusing on the function of texts and translation. Functionalism is a

broad term for various theories that approach translation in this way. Functionalist
approaches to translation were invented in the early twentieth century in Germany.

The target text must be equivalent to the source text. However, equivalence can not solve all
the translation problems. In many translation efforts, translators encounter many cases in
which functional matters take precedence over the normal standard of equivalence,
especially at the information age beginning from the 1970s. The purpose-oriented
approach to translation is one of the central ideas of functionalist theory.

From Nord’s definition, we can see that functionalism is a broad term which pulls together a
variety of functionalist approaches to translation. Functional translation approaches include
not only the Skopos theory developed by German scholars, which have played a major role in
studying translation, but also the theory of dynamic/functional equivalence put forward by
American scholar Eugene A. Nida.

The Skopos theory, originating in Germany, has two major leading exponents, one was Hans
J. Vermeer in an earlier time and the other was Christiane Nord, at the later time.
“Skopos” is a Greek word for “purpose, intent, goal, aim and function”. In Vermeer’s
point of view, any form of translational action must be conceived as an action and any action
has an aim, a purpose. Skopos usually refers to the purpose of the target text. And
Vermeer holds that the optimal strategies are decided by the Skopos or the translation
purpose.

It is quite different from equivalence-based theories, where the source text is absolutely the
yardstick and equivalence is the top principle. In functional theories, what theorists most
concerned about is the purpose or the effect of the target text.

There are three guiding rules in the Skopos theory: skopos rule, coherence rule and fidelity
rule.

The first one offers an answer to the question, that is, what is a good translation. Is it a free
translation, a literal one or something else? It depends on the purpose or typology for which
the translation is needed, because the Skopos of a particular translation task may require a
‘free’ or a ‘faithful’ translation, or anything between these two extremes. In informative text,
“free form, but faithful content” is important because message or information is more
important than the format.

Another important rule of the Skopos theory is the coherence rule. This rule specifies that a
translation should be acceptable in the sense that it is coherent with the receivers’ situation. In
short, the target text should conform to the standard of intratextual coherence. It means
translators should produce a text that is likely to be meaningful to the receiver of the target
culture.
The third rule in the framework of the Skopos theory is the fidelity rule, or ‘intertextual
coherence’ in Vermeer’s words, referring to the faithfulness of the target text to the source
text. Since a translation is an offer of information, it is expected to bear some kind of
relationship with the corresponding source text. The translation should be a representation of
the source text at least in one of the aspects of content, form or effect. The important point is
that intertextual coherence should exist between source and target text, while the form it takes
depends both on the translator’s interpretation of the source text and on the translation
Skopos. In informative texts translation is generally a representation of the content of the
source text.

Besides the three rules, there is another principle, “Function plus Loyalty”, which is raised
by Nord. Because the translation purpose of the translator may be in line with the intentions
of the original author. What the translators should do is to show the responsibility, or
“loyalty” towards those involved in translational interaction including the author, the
translation initiator and the receiver. Loyalty commits the translator bilaterally to the source
and the target sides. It must not be mixed up with fidelity or faithfulness, concepts that
usually refer to a relationship between the source and the target texts. Loyalty is an
interpersonal category referring to a social relationship between people.

Function refers to the factors that make a target text work in the intended way in the target
situation. Loyalty refers to the interpersonal relationship between the translator, the source-
text sender, the target-text addresses and the initiator. Nord believes that the translator should
be responsible bilaterally for the target receiver as well as the original author. The translator
should respect the source text producer and try to adjust the purpose of the target text and the
source text writer’s intentions.

The combination of function plus loyalty, makes a supplement principle that perfects the
Skopos Theory, and grants the translator some liberty in the translating process in order to
achieve the intended function of the target text, as well as keeping him from going far away
from the originalauthor’s intention.

Refracted text” means “texts that have been processed for a certain audience (children, for
example)”, or adapted to a certain poetics or a certain ideology. In 1982 Lefevere took the
term “refraction” to mean “the adaptation of a work of literature to a different audience, with
the intention of influencing the way in which that audience reads the work.”

6. Text analysis in translation according to Ch. Nord.

Definition: formal vs dynamic equivalence, habitus. Валя Чжао

Nord‟s model of text analysis in translation consists of extratextual and intratextual

factors which should be analysed both in a source and a target text and, consequently,
compared.Through intratextual factors, the grammatical, semantic, and stylistic features of
the text are analyzed to grasp the ST denotative and connotative meanings.
 In extratextual analysis, the translator considers what is not stated directly in the text (such
as author’s identity, intention, audience, medium, place, motivation of communication, and
effect) and their functions. Unlike other functionalists, Nord does not include how translators
arrive at intratextual and extratextual factors, and rather emphasizes on the ST. This focus
enables problematic features to be identified and classified. However, it would be complex to
think that all phenomena can be so easily categorized.

At the very core of the analysis,there lies the idea that a translator and subsequently a
reviewer should, firstly, create a ST profile, secondly a TT profile, and finally compare both.
As simple as it may sound, the model is highly sophisticated and it can also be summarised as
follows: “In a translation-oriented analysis, we will first analyse these factors [the
communicative situation and the participants in the communicative act and their function
in the ST situation and then compare them with the corresponding factors in the
(prospective)TT situation”

Last but not least,one more explanation of Nord‟s approach should be mentioned:
“Communicative function determines the strategies of text production. From a retrospective
angle, he [the translator] tries in his ST analysis to verify his expectation regarding text
function, which has been built up by situational clues. From a prospective angle, he has to
check each ST element as to whether it can fulfil the intended TT function.

Extratextual (or external) factors

They are analysed by the translator right before reading a text, the starting point of the
analysis. They help the translator to determine a source text function. Translator‟s task is to
observe a ST situation as both a ST recipient and the translator build up certain expectations
about the intratextual factors of a text which will hopefully be verified by further reading.
The translator should particularly be interested in the effect the text has on the ST recipient.

The set of extratextual factors follows:

1. Sender – is the person (or institution)who uses the text in order to convey a certain
message to somebody else and/or to produce a certain effect, whereas the text producer
writes the text according to the instructions of the sender, and complies with the rules and
norms of text production valid in the respective language and culture. It can be defined as
a person who “transmits a text in order to send a certain message”.

2. Intention - Intention determines structuring of a text(what to mention and what to

omit) and its form (the choice of a TT text type, non-verbal elements). It is the sender
who defines the intention, and the translator should exert himself to adhere to it when
creating a TT.

3. Recipient - at this stage of the analysis, it is in question; later it will particularly be

the ST recipient followed by the TT recipient. These two are, according to Nord, different
from each other at least in two aspects–cultural background and linguistic community.
 Though, in the present thesis, both the ST recipient and the final TT recipient share the
same background and community.

4. Medium - This extratextual factor can be defined as a “medium or vehicle which

conveys the text to the reader”.

5. Place- On account of this, it ought to be said that the place stands not only for the
place of production, but also for the place of reception. When considering the place, the
translator should account for linguistic aspects as well as cultural and political conditions.

6. Time - is important for the text analysis performed before every translation for two
reasons, the first of which is generally applicable on literary texts rather than technical
ones. “Certain text types are linked to a particular period (oracles and epic poems as
opposed to weather reports and television plays), and, text-type conventions also undergo
change”. Secondly, the translator should consider, whether the information given in the
source text is still valid.

7. Motive - represents the reasons why a sender decided to establish communication

with a recipient/s. This also includes the occasion for which the text was produced

8. Text function - it is only by analysing the ST function that the translator can decide
which TT function(s) will be compatible with the given ST. It is as the communicative
function “which a text fulfils in its concrete situation of production/reception Two
different types of translation –documentary and instrumental–may serve as an example of
the connection between the text function and a translation

Additionally

Equivalence is “the greatest possible correspondence between source text and target text”.
Translators are constantly looking for balance between “fidelity (being faithful) and servility
(being too faithful) on the other hand, and liberty (being free) and libertinage (being too free,
i.e. adapting or „even‟ paraphrasing) on the other.

Intertextual coherence - means that a TT should be coherent with other texts of the same
text type in a target culture as the ST is in the source culture. Likewise, the ST should be
coherent with the TT. However, “in a skopos-oriented translation the observance of the
skopos is performed prior to intertextual coherence with the source text”.

When translating, there are always problems related to the analysis of the ST, which must be
solved in order to set up the purpose before beginning a translation. Nord has identified the
following factors that affect extratextual analysis.

First of all, the theorist focuses on the function and text type, the characteristics of the
receiver, as well as the relevance of the place and time of message rendering. Such important
situational aspects as social, cultural, and economic backgrounds of the language users are
closely connected to the competences of both the translator and the recipient.
Moreover, Nord strongly focuses on the communication function of the text through the
universal functions of the language. Also, a reader participates in creating meanings when
reading a text-based on his or her assumption and imagination, and the author might not even
have intended the meanings.

When a text contains many different meanings, it is difficult for a translator to fully
understand the layers of the text intended by the author, which means that the translator can
experience difficulties in deciding how the translation is perceived by the target reader.

One of the biggest challenges for a literary translator is the cultural element inherent in every
publication and text production. It can only be evaluated how difficult it is to detect every
cultural aspect or reference. Because languages bear different cultural contexts, the translator
is challenged to find equivalent resources to convey a specific notion from the ST.

The translator will know much about his/her own culture (the TT culture) while knowing as
much about the author’s culture (the ST culture). It will enable the translator to make
translation choices that will convey and adapt the ST cultural information into information
that will make sense in the TT culture.

The knowledge of the ST culture will enable the translator to recreate the possible reactions
of the ST receivers, and the translator’s understanding of the TT culture allows the translator
to expect the possible responses to the TT receivers. To support the idea, Nord argues, the
translator is not the sender of the ST message but a target culture text-producer who adopts
somebody else’s intention to produce a communicative instrument for the target culture, or a
target-culture document of source-culture communication.

In this respect, the TT is the result of communicative interaction between two cultures. The
above-described extratextual factors affect the text-production into a TL, which is the
principal linguistic instrument in the translation process. Therefore, intratextual factors
should also be considered to define how they restrict translation.

Intratextual Factors in the Theory of Translation by Nord

After exploring the extratextual factors, the translator or reviewer should continue with the
intratextual (internal) ones. These, on the contrary, relate to a text itself and include even non-
verbal elements.

Among the intratextual factors are:

· Content

· Subject manner

· Presuppositions – Pragmatic presuppositions are those “implicitly assumed by the

speaker, who takes it for granted that this will also be the case with the listener”; such
presuppositions usually refer to objects and phenomena of the source culture.
 · Text composition

· Non-verbal elements - By using such signs, the author aims to illustrate,

disambiguate, or even intensify the message contained in a text or a discourse. Among
these are, as for the texts, photos, illustrations, emblems, special types of print, etc.

· Lexis – it may refer to the affiliation of a word to stylistic levels and registers,
word formation, connotations, rhetorical figures (metaphors, repetition), parts of
speech, morphological aspects (suffixes, prefixes, compositions, acronyms,
abbreviations), collocations, idioms, degree of originality (words invented by the author,
phrases coined by him, intentional violation of norms).

· Sentence structure - Is the sentence structure mainly paratactic or hypotactic?

Are the sentences simple or complex? Are there any deviations from functional sentence
perspective? Does the text flow with syntactic figures of speech such as aposiopesis
(which may indicate certain presuppositions),parallelism, chiasm, rhetorical question,
parenthesis, ellipsis etc.

· Suprasegmental features - “serve to highlight or focus certain parts of the text and
to push others to background”, and adds that they possess both an informative
(denotative) and a stylistics (i.e. connotative) function. Simply said, the suprasegmental
features are those which do not fall into any of the previous categories of lexical or
syntactical segments, sentences, paragraphs, etc. In writing, they are signalled by e.g.
italics, spaced or bold type, quotation marks, dashes, parentheses, underlining, affirmative
words (actually, in fact), emphatic evaluations (fantastic, great), clefts(It was John
who...), ellipsis.

Taking into account the looping nature of the translation process, the sequence in
which the translator observes each extratextual or intratextual factor is irrelevant. The
key term determining the relations between the factors is interdependence.

The intratextual factors are mainly concerned with the internal factors of the translated text
itself. They include subject matter, content, and composition of the text, presuppositions,
lexis, sentence structure, and even non-verbal elements (Armstrong 2005, p.42). The
intratextual factors, just like the extratextual factors, are interdependent to a certain extent.
That is because, in a text, the subject matter influences the content, and the content, in turn,
influences the presuppositions made by the author.

In conclusion, Text analysis in Nord’s translation model emphasizes the necessity of

analyzing the situational context and considers the translation process as an act of
communication. All these interpretations are justified by the function that the translation
bears, including referential, appellative, expressive, and phatic.

Regarding the above-presented factors and peculiarities, French-English translation implies

consideration of various extratextual and intratextual factors that have a potent impact on the
outcome. The implementation of Nord’s theory of translation, however, can make the process
more systematic because these factors are taken into the most in-depth consideration.

Summary
A particularly important aspect of Nord‟s model is its looping nature–with every step the
translator takes he has to “look back” on the facts that have arisen from the ST analysis and
their implications for prospective TT. He constantly goes back and forth to choose the
most appropriate solutions and not to miss any important factors, which is illustrated in
the following looping model of the translation process in Looping Model of the Translation

The looping model can be divided into several steps:

1. TT skopos analysis

2. Source text analysis .

a.Determining whether the source text is compatible with the requirements for the
prospective target text.

b.Detailed analysis focused on the elements of particular importance for TT production.

3.Final structuring of the target text

Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. In
such a translation one is concerned with such correspondences as poetry to poetry, sentence
to sentence, and concept to concept. Viewed from this formal orientation, one is concerned
that the message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different
elements in the source language. This means, for example, that the message in the receptor
culture is constantly compared with the message in the source culture to determine the
standards of accuracy and correctness".

Dynamic equivalence is the quality which characterizes a translation in which "the message
of the original text has been so transposed into the receptor language that the response of the
receptor is essentially like that or the original receptors". Nida states that "a translation of
dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness of expression, and tries to relate the
receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture"
Habitus - system of lasting, transposable dispositions which, integrating past experiences,
functions at every moment as a matrix of perceptions, appreciations, and actions and makes
possible the achievement of infinitely diversified tasks, thanks to analogical transfers of
schemes permitting the solution of similarly shaped problems. (Bourdieu)

In the context of translation, the habitus can be understood as secondary habitus and is
significantly marked by the profession of translators.

Habitus can explain why certain translation strategies were adopted and others not, and can
perhaps disclose the translation product as the result of an intensive process of “negotiation.”

7. Text type approaches to translation: K. Reiss.

Definition: componential analysis, optimal relevance in translation. Аня
Гавриловська + Софія

8. Translation quality assessment and theory of situational dimensions (J. House).

Definition: metaphrase, paraphrase, imitation; archaizing principle of translation.
Наталя Бабенко + Софія

9. Relevance theory and translation.

Definition: field, tenor, mode; capital. Марта Кравс

10. Polysystem theory and cultural turn.

Definition: social agent, translation brief. Настя Комар

Polysystem theory is defined as a theory to account for the behavior and evolution of
literary system. In polysystem theory a literary work is not studied in isolation but as
part of a literary system.

In the Dictionary of Translation Studies polysystem theory is defined as a theory to

account for the behavior and evolution of literary system. The term polysystem
denotes a stratified conglomerate of interconnected elements, which changes and
mutates as these elements interact with each other.

In polysystem theory a literary work is not studied in isolation but as part of a literary
system. In other words literature is a part of social, cultural, literary and historical
framework. A literary system can influence other ones. It's to say, the translated
literature which is being imported to a country can influence the native writings.
These effects can be more or less in according to some causes and effects.

Snell-Hornby in her book Translation Studies an Integrated Approach points to

translation system within the polysystem and writes that in this theory literary
translation is seen as one of the elements participating in the constant struggle for
survival and domination. It is emphasized that translations play a primary, creative
and innovative role within the literary system. Hence, in this approach, translation is
seen essentially as a text-type in its own right, as an integral part of the target culture
and not merely as a reproduction of another text.

The term was introduced by M. Snell-Hornby in the collection of essays Translation,

History and Culture (1990) edited by S. Bassnett and A. Lefevere. Cultural turn is a
move from translation as text to translation as culture and politics.They dismissed
linguistic theories that “moved from the word to the text but not beyond”. They go
beyond language and focus on the interaction between translation and culture, how
culture influences and constrains translation and “on the larger issues of context,
history and convention”. Cultural turn in translation involves studies of changing
standards in translation over time, the power on the publishing industry to fit specific
ideologies, feminist writing and translation, translation and colonization and
translation as rewriting.

Later on the term “translation studies” was frequently used by Lefevere and Bassnett.
1970s witnessed the “cultural turn” in translation studies in western countries.
Polysystem theory, descriptive translation studies and manipulation school were the
most influential at that time.

Every translator can not be separated from his cultural background. On the contrary,
culture would be deeply engraved upon his mind. Therefore, during the process of
translation, translators will be inevitably influenced by culture, politics and ideology,
etc. Thus it is noteworthy that culture factors are an indispensable part in translation
studies and the “cultural turn” in translation studies is of great significance.

A translation brief (or translation request) is a set of indications and instructions that
an individual needs to compile and send to your translation provider at the beginning
of every translation project.

Sociology of agents

Theories that bring social action to the fore conceive of social life from the perspec-
tive of individually acting persons who are involved in social processes. In such a
context, agents participating in the translation procedure are highlighted from various
aspects. Their activity is, for example, discussed in light of the sociology of profession
and the sociology of literature (Silbermann and Hänseroth 1985) or in their role in the
constitution of a unified Europe (Barret-Ducrocq 1992). Cor- nelia Lauber (1996)
attempts to reconstruct self-portraits of French translators by evaluating their
sociological profiles through gender, labour, and source-text specific questions, an
approach which can also be applied to other geographical or cultural contexts.

11. Translation as rewriting: patronage, refraction, functions of rewriting.

Definition: relay translation, actor network. Надя Мироненко
12. Sociology of translation: social agent, habitus, types of capital, field.
Definition: skopos, domestication vs foreignizing. Тарас Ковтун

13. Sociology of translation: three types according to M. Wolf.

Definition: translation as manipulation, situational dimensions. Таня Андрійчик

Michaela Wolf and her analysis. This approach is more user/student friendly.

There are three types of sociology of translation studies:

- Sociology of agents

- Sociology of the translation process

- Sociology of the cultural product

As sociology of translation is concerned – it is a kind of macro environment of

translation activities comprising these three subfields. Some researches question that
its ignorance of language and text may make it deviate from the essence of translation
studies.

Sociology of agents

The definition of translation by Th. Hermans that the translation is viewed as a

"socially regulated activity" as it involves people who are social agents/creatures,
social institutions and both individuals of their capital/habitus as social agents and
social institutions (which are kind of non-human agents) that determine translation
strategies. That this the essence of sociology of translation – the macro environment of
the translation activity.

And the translators are, from the socio-translation angle, socially conditioned
subjectivities (A.Pym) because they are individuals. All students are different →
individuals → subjectivities. And we are all socially conditioned whether we want this
or not. Thus, this is actually the combination of seemingly incompatible things:
objective and subjective, social and individual – that is what we have in this sociology
of agents.

There is the shift from the analysis of text, content to the individual translators.
Translators are now the central objects of research as socially conditioned subjectivity.
It means that we analyse their capital/habitus and there is something preconditioned
by the society. But, there are also their personal individual experience, features and
everything combined shapes them as translators, social agents + individuals.

And the notion of sociology of agents is closely connected with the ideas of Andrew
Chesterman "The Name and Nature of Translator Studies" (2008).

The title is an intertext it refers to the James Holmes "The Name and Nature of
Translation Studies". And we have Translator Studies – a kind of new field of studies
which is a product or result of sociology of translation, namely of its subfield –
sociology of agents

The sociology of translators (i.e. Translator Studies) covers such issues as the status of
translators in different countries (whether it is prestiges or not) — general sociological
profiles of translator: rates of pay, working conditions, role models and translators’
habitus, professional organizations, translators’ networks, copyright, public image of
the translators’ profession and so on + gender and sexual orientation and how it affects
a translator’s work and attitudes.

Translator Studies focus not on translation as texts, not even on translating process but
on translators themselves and other agents involved, on the agent model (editors,
publishers and commissioners)

Sociology of translation process

The next goes, according to Michaela Wolf, sociology of the translation process, and
here we analyse scopos (purpose of translation). The idea here is that the scopos is
also socially motivated. This is the response to the requirements of the society. It is
less personal than social. So the translation is deliberate and conscious act of selection
of text, of their structurization (here can be mentioned all these norms of translation).

Sociology of the cultural product

And sociology of a cultural product – this is everything that takes place after the
translation is produced. This is the publication, distribution, promotion, the
contribution this published translation makes to the society in general: social role,
ideology, image, social identity.

One the one hand, sociology of translation focuses on the social and cultural elements
that influence the selection, production and distribution of translation. On the other
hand, it is also with language conversion, text production and translation strategies. So
actually, though it sounds very limited, we may analyse all aspects of the translation
process in terms of sociology: starting with the text being just at the stage of being
selected by the publishing house and up to it being published and promoted, discussed
and reviewed including the analysis at the macro textual level. Here everything may
be involved. During the analyzing from the social viewpoint, we do not limit
ourselves to the text but involve everything behind the text (it requires a lot of
background information).

The general idea is that now, at this stage of the development of the translation studies
it is impossible to deny translation activity as a social phenomena. Because if we
analyse it separately, it is the deviation from the translation studies.
TRANSLATION AS MANIPULATION

Manipulation/rewriting

When the text is translated, it is manipulated changed by the target culture. It doesn’t
mean distorting, and the manipulation itself may not be vivid, but it is surely presented
there.

Andrea Lefevere in his «Translation, Literature and manipulation of Literature Fame»

(1992) examines factors that govern the reception, acceptance and rejection of literary
texts: power, ideology, institution and manipulation.

The text is translated, but it is not immediately accepted or may not. It may be rejected
when it is already translated, or when publishing houses just discuss the possibility of
its translation. Mostly, it is governed by ideology. When text is already translated it
may be accepted or rejected by the readers. No-one buys book, no reedition is coming
out and the translation is not remembered by anyone.

Andrea Lefevere and his supporters didn’t view rewriting in translation separately,
they were interested in rewriting of culture in general. Rewriting is not only presented
in translation but in historiographic, anthologization, literal criticism and editing etc.

SITUATIONAL DIMENSIONS

Julianne House:”every text is placed within a particular situational which has to be

correctly identified and taken into account by the translator. If the ST and TT differ
substantially on situational features, then they are not functionally equivalent, the
translation is not of a high quality.

House’s model requires the analysis and comparison of the source text (ST) and the
target text (TT) at three levels: Language/Text, Register and Genre, the last two being
“situational dimensions”. At a situational dimension level, the Register, or the analysis
of the text within its context, is further subdivided into Field (subject matter or social
action), Mode (channel and degree of participation between writer and reader
[medium {simple/complex} or participation {simple/complex}]) and Tenor (social
distance between addresser and addressee [participant relation {author’s provenance
and stance, social role relationship, social attitude]). The final situational dimension is
Genre, or the “cultural discourse type”.

The analysis of the situational dimensions is used to create a textual profile for the ST
and a statement regarding its function (ideational and interpersonal) is presented.

DIMENSIONS OF LANGUAGE USER:

1. Geographical origin
 2. Social class
3. Time

DIMENSIONS OF LANGUAGE USE:

1. Medium(simple/complex)
2. Participation(simple/complex)
3. Social role relationship
4. Social attitude
5. Province

14. Retranslation: functions, types, Retranslation Hypothesis.

Definition:light and full post-editing, habitus. Міріам Адрага

15. Relay translation and plagiarism.

Definition: speech act, interdisciplinarity. Христя Береза
A speech act is an utterance that serves a function in communication. We perform
speech acts when we offer an apology, greeting, request, complaint, invitation,
compliment, or refusal.
Interdisciplinarity is the combining of methods and insights of two or more academic
disciplines into the pursuit of a common task.
Retranslation is defined as several translations of a work that have already been
translated into the same target language. The term is also used for translations from
the translated versions of the original (“relay translation, or indirect translation”).

Retranslation can be viewed from two viewpoints: as a product and as a process. In

terms of a product, retranslation is a second or subsequent translation of the same ST
into the same TL, whereas in terms of process, it is a phenomenon which occurs
within the period of time (Kaisa Koskinen, Outi Palopski, 2010)

Retranslating and literary canon formation are indeed mutually dependent:

retranslations help texts in achieving the status of a classic, and the status of a classic
often promotes further retranslations (Leonardo Venuti 2004). In addition to ‘world
literature’ and children’s classics, some scholars have also studied non-fiction (see e.g.
Sebnem Susam-Sarajeva 2006 on retranslating literary and feminist theory, and Luis
von Flotow on feminist retranslation of Simone Beauvoir 2009)

Retranslations of literature have proved to be useful data for a number of research

questions in Translation Studies: with the source text and the target language being
constant, the variable of time allows one to study issues such as the changing
translation norms and strategies, the standardization of language, or the effects of the
political or cultural context

According to Koskinen and Palopski, retranslation can be studied from at least two
aspects: the profiles of retranslations (which version in succession is more
domesticated or foreignized) and the reasons for retranslation.
RETRANSLATION HYPOTHESIS by Antoine Berman (1990) and Paul Bensimon:
retranslations are expected to contribute to a better reception and transmission of an
original; they are improved translations. First translations are domesticating, whereas
the following retranslations are foreignizing.

Enrico Monti (2011) gives several factors motivating retranslations:

1. to restore the textual integrity of the source text since the previous translation is
unsatisfactory because of omissions or modifications
2. to recover a direct link to the source text, a link that could be missing in the
previous translation (relay translation). The status of any language as a lingua franca
may be the cause of many cases of relay translations.
3. to revitalize the previous translation(s) that age(s).
4. to improve the previous translation(s) with the help of new lexicographical and
research tools. This is editorial work in general and there are many cases that editors
decide for a new translation rather they struggle with the old translation.
5. to give a new perspective to the text when some perspectives of dimensions of the
source text were not sufficiently taken into consideration in previous translations.
6. to create a retranslation just because the operation proves to be more profitable
than a new edition of the existing translation.

The concept of voice. The translators are naturally urged to give their own voice to
their new work which would make them visible and distinguishable. Other terms:
“translator’s visibility” (Venuti 1995), translator’s discursive presence (Schiavi 1996),
“translator’s style” (Baker 2000)

Using previous translations: retranslation or plagiarism?

Angela Leighton’s (1994): it’s mandatory to identify “the line between permissible
and impermissible use of existing translations to create improved new versions”.

Avril Pyman (1965): the principles for an ethical, proper and authentic retranslation.
1) A close scrutiny of previous translations will result in the interference which is
unwanted because of ethical and stylistic considerations (retranslation as “a stylistic
freak”).
2)The translator’s good sense as the moral justification in the use of previous
translation/s for the betterment of the new one.
Distinguishing between retranslation and revision. Revision, i.e. editing, correcting or
modernizing a previously existing translation for re-publication, is sometimes seen as
a first step towards retranslation. Nevertheless, versions may get labelled as revisions
or retranslations rather arbitrarily.
Some texts are hybrids, containing chunks of revised earlier translation and chunks of
retranslation.

PLAGIARISM IN TRANSLATION.
Teresa Turell (2004) identifies two different forms of plagiarism in translation: 1) a
translated text is published as an original work in another language. 2) the publication
of an already translated text as a retranslation by another translator.
Plagiarism in translation is a violation of intellectual property rights but norms,
boundaries and understanding of plagiarism are culture bound.
If the retranslator adopts some of the lexical, syntactic or stylistic units from previous
translations, this effort is evidently a case of plagiarism.
A retranslation is the translator’s commitment for making a contribution to literature
with a new translation together with the retranslator’s own interpretation and personal
approach to the literary work. A retranslator’s starting point is by no means the
previous translations, but the original work
The evidence of plagiarism may have qualitative or quantitative nature and it may
come on lexical level with respect to overlapping vocabulary, shared once-only words,
phrases, unique vocabulary and approach to word plays; or on syntactic level with
respect to “calque syntactic structures”; or on stylistic level with respect to recreation
in the target language or translational approach particularly chosen by the translator.

How to identify genuine and plagiarized retranslations?

1) the wholesale duplication of a previous translation can be identified with a simple
comparison of two texts manually or electronically.
2) subtle ways :
· lexicological and syntactic modifications to the previous translation(s);
· combining random or non-random pieces of two or more previous
translations to create a “new” product;
· rewriting an existing translation by adding “style” to it;
· rewriting an existing translation by taking the style from it;
· producing a condensed version of a relatively longer text;
· combining a partial retranslation with sections from previous
translation(s;
· combining different sections of a literary work “translated” by several
translators.

16. Revision in translation, translation editology.

Definition: Translator Studies, text type. Леся Павленко
Translation studies is the field of study that deals with the theory, description, and
application of translation. Because it examines translation not only as interlingual
transfer but also as intercultural communication, it can also be described as an
interdiscipline which touches on other diverse fields of knowledge, including
comparative literature, cultural studies, gender studies, computer science, history,
linguistics, philosophy, rhetoric, and semiotics. Translation Studies entails the
systematic examination of translation both as an applied practice and also as a means
of understanding the movement and transfer between diverse languages and cultures.
Translation Studies deals with the practical experiences of the translator; it also
explores from theoretical and methodological perspectives the history and philosophy
of translation, as well as current trends in the field. Translation Studies may examine
the practices and context of translating texts that are specialist (legal, business,
medical, etc.); it also may explore the art of translation as a creative act in literary
translation and international marketing. Translation Studies may also explore how
issues of culture, power, gender, ethics medium affect the act of translating

Text type are socially effective, efficient, and appropriate moidds into which the
linguistic material available in the system o f a language is recast. A text can be
classified into a particular type according to which of the four components in the
communication process receives the primary focus: speaker, listener, thing referred to
or the linguistic material. If the main focus is on the speaker (sender), the text will be
expressive; if on the listener (receiver), it will be persuasive; if on the linguistic code,
it will be literary; and if the aim is to represent the realities of the world, it will be
referential.

Revision in translation, translation editology

Anton Popovic (1971, 1975) was the first to introduce translation editing (editology)
to the disciplinary mapping of TrS: phraxeology of translation – translation sociology,
translation criticism and editorial practice of translation.

Jan Ferenčik (1981): applied translation criticism (the main critic is the editor) and
social translation criticism (deals with reviewers of the published edition and actual
reception

Editing

The assigned editor will refine the translated text by incorporating preferred glossary
terminology and the style specifications established during the pre-flight phase of the
project. The editor also ensures that the content no longer reads like a translation, but
reads as if it was originally crafted in the target language.

Editor is viewed as an adaptor of the final version, as mediator between the

prevailing language norms and the TT, an implementer of the directives of the
publishing house under the influence of the readers’ habits: accommodate the text to
the readers’ expectations in order to meet their aesthetics.

Brian Mossop (2010, 2014) Balancing of interests of the parties involved in the
translation process.

Revision relies on two functions: gatekeeper and the language therapist. The
gatekeeper function aims at correcting the text and bringing it into line with pre-
existing rules. The language therapist effects those changes that assist the reader in his
or her journey through the text. Words that seem too foreign might be substituted with
more indigenous terms, and complex sentences might be simplified.

The translator finds a balance between the author and the reader; the reviser leans
towards the needs of the readers and tries to see the text from their point of view.

The phase of quality control in the translation process:

 · Editing means finding problems in a text which is not a translation and then
correcting or improving it, with particular attention to making the text
suitable for its future readers and for the use to which they will put it.
· Revising, is an aspect of the profession of translator; that function of
professional.
· Proofreading means looking for and correcting mistakes (most often
mistakes in spelling, grammar, text layout, etc.) in a text, be it a translation
or not. “Proofreaders can be non-translators; [they] do only those forms of
checking and correcting that don’t involve comparing the translation to its
source.
· Post-editing means editing machine translation; it is applied in order to
achieve higher speed in the translation process, however at the risk of lower
quality.

Social dimension: The reviser and the revisee are subject to the hierarchy existing
between them. The revisee may be the reviser’s subordinate, a fellow-colleague.

Ethical dimension: Every translator-reviser has their own image of a good translation
solution. Working as a reviser means being open to solutions of others and not
imposing one’s own ideas on someone whose work is acceptable and good.: “One
thing you must do is recognize the validity of approaches to translation other than
yours. It’s someone else’s work, and you must respect their approach unless the term
they have used could seriously mislead the reader about the intent of the source text.
Moreover, it is advisable to distinguish necessary changes from simple suggestions”.
(B. Morop)

Norms of revision

Norms play a significant role in revision, they are relevant to the entire transfer
operation, not just the actual process of translating” (Theo Hermans ). Revision as a
sub-process of the translation operation is guided by numerous norms.

If the key action in translation is decision-making, in revision it is decision re-making

or verifying.

1. Informational norms. The amount of information in translation can exceed

that of the original but not much.

2. Social norms. Deletion, modification of some parts of the ST due to ethic,

aesthetic or politically correct reasons.

3. Compositional norms. Rearrangement or deletion of some chapters for

adaptations (e.g. in readers). Preserving genre markers of the original.

4. Logical norms. Mistakes in the original shouldn’t be corrected, only

explained in editor’s or translator’s commentaries.
 5. Linguistic norms.

6. Psycholinguistic norms. The complexity of the original cannot exceed that

of the translation.

7. Publishing and polygraphist norms.

Strategies and techniques of revision:

1. Leaving the translation overnight or longer

2. Changing the medium – revising on paper instead of on screen, recording

the translation on a Dictaphone and than listening to it, etc

3. Starting reading at some point in the middle of the document , even reading
backwards can generate the same beneficial outcome,

4. Letting somebody else read the translation (or imagining to be someone else
when self-revising it).

5. Changing mental state – for example by changing a pen, a chair, a place one
works in.

6. Duplicate the final reader‘s experience by starting with the unilingual

reading

Using different modes of reading

1. Reading larger units of text during comparative reading,

2. Inserting short breaks from time to time

3. Thinking negatively “This means trying to define not the ideal function of
the translation, but the probable „failure conditions‟, the ways in which the
translation would obviously not do its job”. (A. Pym)

4. Separating the checks –(spelling, commas, numbers, accurate transfer,

capitalizations, collocations, etc.)

Principles of revision

1. Minimise corrections

2. Avoid duplication effort

3. Avoid perfectionism

4. Don‘t retranslate

5. Beware of introducing errors

 6. Minimise amending errors you are not currently checking for (B. Mossop)

Self-revision.

When revising one’s own translation, the expectancy effect and familiarity effect
manifest themselves more than in revising somebody else’s translation. These
phenomena make it harder to detect mistakes and may generally hinder accuracy of
self-revision.

Unlike when revising a translation of somebody else, when self-revising, one has the
feeling of ownership of the target text, which may, on the one hand, obstruct
objectivity and efficiency of revising, but, on the other hand, also provide stronger
motivation.

Post-editing

Post-editing is the process of humans introducing amendments into machine-

generated translation to achieve an acceptable final product. Ideally post-editing is
preceded by pre-editing, applying the principles of controlled languages (e.g.
simplified technical l-s Caterpillar Technical English, IBM's Easy English etc).

Light post-editing aims at making the output simply understandable; full post-editing
at making it also stylistically appropriate. All CAT tools now support post-editing of
machine

EDITING REVISING

● is on a sentence level, addressing ● deals with the paper as a whole,

problems with spelling, grammar, considering strengths and
punctuation, or word choice. weaknesses, arguments, focus and
● is one-sided. The editor writes organization, support, and voice,
comments and corrections on the as well as mechanical issues.
paper and returns the paper to the ● is dialogue-based. The purpose or
writer. revision is to ask questions,
● is hierarchical. An editor looks for expanding ideas and challenging
"mistakes" and "fixes" them. An arguments which require
editor places value on writing discussion between the writer and
(such as a grade). the reader.
● focuses on the paper as a product. ● is non-hierarchical. Offering
questions and making
observations allow the writer and
reader to hold separate and valid
opinions. The purpose of
discussion is to expand and clarify
ideas rather than "correct" them.
● focuses on the writer in the
 process of writing and increasing
the writer's understanding of the
paper's strengths and weaknesses.
● clarifies and focuses the writer's
arguments by defining terms,
making concessions and counter-
arguments, and using evidence.
This may involve moving or
removing entire paragraphs,
extending or narrowing ideas,
rewriting vague or confusing text,
and adding to existing paragraphs.