Different Approaches to Translation
Transcript of Different Approaches to Translation
Translation Approaches 1
Different Approaches to Translation
Pejman Jalayeri
Sheikh Bahaie University
March 2010
Translation Approaches 2
Abstract
When we talk about approaches to translation we may go wrong with many
assumptions about the sheer meaning of the word approach. According to
Concise Oxford English Dictionary (COD) approach means: ―come near or
nearer to in distance, time, or standard‖ as a verb and ―a way of dealing with
something‖ as a noun. Although both make some sense but it is not so easy
to mix it with the term translation as it encompasses very distinct
perspectives. The first sense focuses on the role of the translator in taking
the original or source text (ST) and turning it into a text in another language
(the target text, TT). The second sense centers on the concrete translation
product produced by the translator. This is inevitable source of confusion but
not the unsolvable type as other problems such as one that Pym mentioned in
his new work Exploring Translation Theories. As Pym claims, the
neologisms made by some of theorists like Holz-Manttari, is the reason that
translators don’t understand the translation theory. But since the translation
started to be thought about as a science we have the area of Translation
Studies.
In this paper we are going to talk about both senses and how to deal with
them and get closer to them. First we consider approaches to the translation
craft itself since it seems more important, then we will talk about the
approaches to translation studies and ways to get close to the theories of
translation. In other words by approaches we mean strategies to translate the
text.
Translation Approaches 3
Introduction
To understand the real nature of translation we have to be aware of the
elements that include in translation. As we mentioned before the translation
consists of languages and translators who do the transfer of meanings
between them. The representation of the languages is in form of texts and
other types of tangible materials like sounds or pictures. So when translating
we should be aware of the medium and its characteristics. Each element
describes one certain approach to translation. For example in case of text,
they specify different types of texts as Newmark puts, the informative,
expressive and so forth. For every type we have to use special strategies
depending on the characteristics of that kind. So we need to realize the
categories. In order to have categories we list the elements of translation and
cross reference them with the strategies used to find the categories we need.
In this regard many scholars tried to analysis the translation to understand its
nuances so they happened to create a new concept as approaches. Here we
put these approaches into two different categories. The first is the same as
strategies because it means how to deal with texts in order to translate and
the second is how to deal with elements other than sheer text to reach to a
theory worth of study and analysis in translation.
Translation Approaches 4
Translation approaches
The translating approaches, as depicted by Nida (1964) are as follow:
I. Technical approaches:
A. analysis of the source and target languages;
B. a through study of the source language text before making
attempts translate it;
C. Making judgments of the semantic and syntactic
approximations. (pp. 241-45)
II. Organizational approaches:
constant reevaluation of the attempt made; contrasting it with the
existing available translations of the same text done by other
translators, and checking the text's communicative effectiveness by
asking the target language readers to evaluate its accuracy and
effectiveness and studying their reactions (pp. 246-47).
Krings (1986:18) defines translation strategy as "translator's potentially
conscious plans for solving concrete translation problems in the framework
of a concrete translation task," and Seguinot (1989) believes that there are at
least three global strategies employed by the translators: (i) translating
without interruption for as long as possible; (ii) correcting surface errors
immediately; (iii) leaving the monitoring for qualitative or stylistic errors in
the text to the revision stage.
Moreover, Loescher (1991:8) defines translation strategy as "a potentially
conscious approach for solving a problem faced in translating a text, or any
segment of it." As it is stated in this definition, the notion of consciousness is
significant in distinguishing strategies which are used by the learners or
translators. In this regard, Cohen (1998:4) asserts that "the element of
consciousness is what distinguishes strategies from these processes that are
not strategic."
Furthermore, Bell (1998:188) differentiates between global (those dealing
with whole texts) and local (those dealing with text segments) strategies and
confirms that this distinction results from various kinds of translation
problems.
Translation Approaches 5
Venuti (1998:240) indicates that translation approaches "involve the basic
tasks of choosing the foreign text to be translated and developing a method
to translate it." He employs the concepts of domesticating and foreignizing
to refer to translation strategies.
Jaaskelainen (1999:71) considers strategy as, "a series of competencies, a set
of steps or processes that favor the acquisition, storage, and/or utilization of
information." He maintains that strategies are "heuristic and flexible in
nature, and their adoption implies a decision influenced by amendments in
the translator's objectives."
Taking into account the process and product of translation, Jaaskelainen
(2005) divides strategies into two major categories: some strategies relate to
what happens to texts, while other strategies relate to what happens in the
process.
Product-related strategies, as Jaaskelainen (2005:15) writes, involves the
basic tasks of choosing the SL text and developing a method to translate it.
However, she maintains that process-related strategies "are a set of (loosely
formulated) rules or principles which a translator uses to reach the goals
determined by the translating situation" (p.16). Moreover, Jaaskelainen
(2005:16) divides this into two types, namely global strategies and local
strategies: "global strategies refer to general principles and modes of action
and local strategies refer to specific activities in relation to the translator's
problem-solving and decision-making."
Newmark (1988b) mentions the difference between translation methods and
translation approachs. He writes that, "[w]hile translation methods relate to
whole texts, translation approachs are used for sentences and the smaller
units of language" (p.81). He goes on to refer to the following methods of
translation:
Word-for-word translation: in which the SL word order is preserved
and the words translated singly by their most common meanings, out
of context.
Literal translation: in which the SL grammatical constructions are
converted to their nearest TL equivalents, but the lexical words are
again translated singly, out of context.
Translation Approaches 6
Faithful translation: it attempts to produce the precise contextual
meaning of the original within the constraints of the TL grammatical
structures.
Semantic translation: which differs from 'faithful translation' only in
as far as it must take more account of the aesthetic value of the SL
text.
Adaptation: which is the freest form of translation, and is used mainly
for plays (comedies) and poetry; the themes, characters, plots are
usually preserved, the SL culture is converted to the TL culture and
the text is rewritten.
Free translation: it produces the TL text without the style, form, or
content of the original.
Idiomatic translation: it reproduces the 'message' of the original but
tends to distort nuances of meaning by preferring colloquialisms and
idioms where these do not exist in the original.
Communicative translation: it attempts to render the exact contextual
meaning of the original in such a way that both content and language
are readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership (1988b:
45-47).
Newmark (1991:10-12) writes of a continuum existing between "semantic"
and "communicative" translation. Any translation can be "more, or less
semantic—more, or less, communicative—even a particular section or
sentence can be treated more communicatively or less semantically." Both
seek an "equivalent effect." Zhongying (1994: 97), who prefers literal
translation to free translation, writes that, "[i]n China, it is agreed by many
that one should translate literally, if possible, or appeal to free translation."
In order to clarify the distinction between approach and strategy, the
forthcoming section is allotted to discussing the approachs of translating
culture-specific terms, and strategies for rendering allusions will be
explained in detail.
2.1. Approaches to translating culture-specific concepts (CSCs)
Graedler (2000:3) puts forth some approaches of translating CSCs:
1. Making up a new word.
2. Explaining the meaning of the SL expression in lieu of translating it.
Translation Approaches 7
3. Preserving the SL term intact.
4. Opting for a word in the TL which seems similar to or has the same
"relevance" as the SL term.
Defining culture-bound terms (CBTs) as the terms which "refer to concepts,
institutions and personnel which are specific to the SL culture" (p.2), Harvey
(2000:2-6) puts forward the following four major techniques for translating
CBTs:
1. Functional Equivalence: It means using a referent in the TL culture
whose function is similar to that of the source language (SL) referent.
As Harvey (2000:2) writes, authors are divided over the merits of this
technique: Weston (1991:23) describes it as "the ideal method of
translation," while Sarcevic (1985:131) asserts that it is "misleading
and should be avoided."
2. Formal Equivalence or 'linguistic equivalence': It means a 'word-for-
word' translation.
3. Transcription or 'borrowing' (i.e. reproducing or, where necessary,
transliterating the original term): It stands at the far end of SL-
oriented strategies. If the term is formally transparent or is explained
in the context, it may be used alone. In other cases, particularly where
no knowledge of the SL by the reader is presumed, transcription is
accompanied by an explanation or a translator's note.
4. Descriptive or self-explanatory translation: It uses generic terms (not
CBTs) to convey the meaning. It is appropriate in a wide variety of
contexts where formal equivalence is considered insufficiently clear.
In a text aimed at a specialized reader, it can be helpful to add the
original SL term to avoid ambiguity.
The following are the different translation approaches that Newmark (1988b)
proposes:
Transference: it is the process of transferring an SL word to a TL text.
It includes transliteration and is the same as what Harvey (2000:5)
named "transcription."
Naturalization: it adapts the SL word first to the normal pronunciation,
then to the normal morphology of the TL. (Newmark, 1988b:82)
Cultural equivalent: it means replacing a cultural word in the SL with
a TL one. however, "they are not accurate" (Newmark, 1988b:83)
Translation Approaches 8
Functional equivalent: it requires the use of a culture-neutral word.
(Newmark, 1988b:83)
Descriptive equivalent: in this approach the meaning of the CBT is
explained in several words. (Newmark, 1988b:83)
Componential analysis: it means "comparing an SL word with a TL
word which has a similar meaning but is not an obvious one-to-one
equivalent, by demonstrating first their common and then their
differing sense components." (Newmark, 1988b:114)
Synonymy: it is a "near TL equivalent." Here economy trumps
accuracy. (Newmark, 1988b:84)
Through-translation: it is the literal translation of common
collocations, names of organizations and components of compounds.
It can also be called: claque or loan translation. (Newmark, 1988b:84)
Shifts or transpositions: it involves a change in the grammar from SL
to TL, for instance, (i) change from singular to plural, (ii) the change
required when a specific SL structure does not exist in the TL, (iii)
change of an SL verb to a TL word, change of an SL noun group to a
TL noun and so forth. (Newmark, 1988b:86)
Modulation: it occurs when the translator reproduces the message of
the original text in the TL text in conformity with the current norms of
the TL, since the SL and the TL may appear dissimilar in terms of
perspective. (Newmark, 1988b:88)
Recognized translation: it occurs when the translator "normally uses
the official or the generally accepted translation of any institutional
term." (Newmark, 1988b:89)
Compensation: it occurs when loss of meaning in one part of a
sentence is compensated in another part. (Newmark, 1988b:90)
Paraphrase: in this approach the meaning of the CBT is explained.
Here the explanation is much more detailed than that of descriptive
equivalent. (Newmark, 1988b:91)
Couplets: it occurs when the translator combines two different
approaches. (Newmark, 1988b:91)
Notes: notes are additional information in a translation. (Newmark,
1988b:91)
Notes can appear in the form of 'footnotes.' Although some stylists consider
a translation sprinkled with footnotes terrible with regard to appearance,
nonetheless, their use can assist the TT readers to make better judgments of
the ST contents. Nida (1964:237-39) advocates the use of footnotes to fulfill
Translation Approaches 9
at least the two following functions: (i) to provide supplementary
information, and (ii) to call attention to the original's discrepancies.
A really troublesome area in the field of translation appears to be the
occurrence of allusions, which seem to be culture-specific portions of a SL.
All kinds of allusions, especially cultural and historical allusions, bestow a
specific density on the original language and need to be explicated in the
translation to bring forth the richness of the SL text for the TL audience.
Appearing abundantly in literary translations, allusions, as Albakry (2004:3)
points out, "are part of the prior cultural knowledge taken for granted by the
author writing for a predominantly Moslem Arab [SL] audience. To give the
closest approximation of the source language, therefore, it was necessary to
opt for 'glossing' or using explanatory footnotes." However, somewhere else
he claims that, "footnotes ... can be rather intrusive, and therefore, their uses
were minimized as much as possible" (Albakry, 2004:4).
2.2. Approaches to translating allusions
Proper names, which are defined by Richards (1985:68) as "names of a
particular person, place or thing" and are spelled "with a capital letter," play
an essential role in a literary work. For instance let us consider personal PNs.
They may refer to the setting, social status and nationality of characters, and
really demand attention when rendered into a foreign language.
There are some models for rendering PNs in translations. One of these
models is presented by Hervey and Higgins (1986) who believe that there
exist two strategies for translating PNs. They point out: "either the name can
be taken over unchanged from the ST to the TT, or it can be adopted to
conform to the phonic/graphic conventions of the TL" (p.29).
Hervey and Higgins (1986) refer to the former as exotism which "is
tantamount to literal translation, and involves no cultural transposition"
(p.29), and the latter as transliteration. However, they propose another
approach or alternative, as they put it, namely cultural transplantation.
Being considered as "the extreme degree of cultural transposition," cultural
transplantation is considered to be a approach in which "SL names are
replaced by indigenous TL names that are not their literal equivalents, but
have similar cultural connotations" (Hervey & Higgins, 1986:29).
Translation Approaches 10
Regarding the translation of PNs, Newmark (1988a:214) asserts that,
"normally, people's first and sure names are transferred, thus preserving
nationality and assuming that their names have no connotations in the text."
The approach of transference cannot be asserted to be effective where
connotations and implied meanings are significant. Indeed, there are some
names in the Persian poet Sa'di's work Gulestan, which bear connotations
and require a specific strategy for being translated. Newmark's (1988a:215)
solution of the mentioned problem is as follows: "first translate the word that
underlies the SL proper name into the TL, and then naturalize the translated
word back into a new SL proper name." However, there is a shortcoming in
the strategy in question. As it seems it is only useful for personal PNs, since
as Newmark (1988a:215), ignoring the right of not educated readers to enjoy
a translated text, states, it can be utilized merely "when the character's name
is not yet current amongst an educated TL readership."
Leppihalme (1997:79) proposes another set of strategies for translating the
proper name allusions:
i. Retention of the name:
a. Using the name as such.
b. Using the name, adding some guidance.
c. Using the name, adding a detailed explanation, for instance, a
footnote.
ii. Replacement of the name by another:
a. Replacing the name by another SL name.
b. Replacing the name by a TL name
iii. Omission of the name:
a. Omitting the name, but transferring the sense by other means,
for instance by a common noun.
b. Omitting the name and the allusion together.
Moreover, nine strategies for the translation of key-phrase allusions are
proposed by Leppihalme (1997: 82) as follows:
i. Use of a standard translation,
Translation Approaches 11
ii. Minimum change, that is, a literal translation, without regard to
connotative or contextual meaning,
iii. Extra allusive guidance added in the text,
iv. The use of footnotes, endnotes, translator's notes and other explicit
explanations not supplied in the text but explicitly given as additional
information,
v. Stimulated familiarity or internal marking, that is, the addition of
intra-allusive allusion ,
vi. Replacement by a TL item,
vii. Reduction of the allusion to sense by rephrasing,
viii. Re-creation, using a fusion of techniques: creative construction of a
passage which hints at the connotations of the allusion or other special
effects created by it,
ix. Omission of the allusion.
Approaches to translation Studies
Translation Approaches 12
In modern times translation has taken on a more central function in societies.
Far from being considered as a linguistic activity, only it is now seen as
bridging, and sometimes broadening, gaps among diverse cultures. In
Translation Studies, its socio-cultural dimension has been taken into account.
It has been shown translation may bring new inputs into local cultures to the
extent that it may even reshape them. It may develop national cultures to the
detriment of more regional ones, or the reverse, or also play ambivalent roles.
In contexts where many languages coexist, its role as a vehicle for mediation
and communication is sometimes questioned as it may elevate one language
to a higher status while downplaying the others. It may reinforce jingoism or
enculturation, prejudices or awareness of differences. In other words
translation modifies, or preserves, the perception of the other. Hence,
translating as an activity and translation as the result of this activity are
inseparable from the concept of culture.
From this viewpoint words are not taken for themselves but for their
communicative functions. Translation methods and strategies, different
linguistic systems and their constraints in terms of meaning and construction,
worldviews, etc. are still analyzed, but in so far as they reveal and contribute
to a particular case of intercultural communication.
Besides, translations never only affect words. Texts do not appear on their
own but accompany or are accompanied by pre-textual elements such as
book covers, figures, diagrams, color, real products, etc. so that translation
studies should analyze translations in their overall environments. As can be
seen, the concept of translation that is developed here is all-embracing. Is
translation only an inter-linguistic process or does it also constitutes an inter-
semiotic activity across cultures and languages?
A brief consideration of the reasons for the present neglect of the
historiographical dimension in Translation Studies will be followed by a
general overview of the main tendencies which have had some bearing on
the evolution of the discipline, especially from the fifties onwards
In the course of the 20th century the study of translation has undergone quite
different kinds of focus. This is not new in translation history. In fact, the
practice, as well as the theory, of translation has from the outset been
intimately associated with other disciplines such as rhetoric, grammar,
poetics, literature and hermeneutics.
In the first half of the 20th century, philology dominated the reflexion on
translation and was later replaced by the philosophy of language that
Translation Approaches 13
discovered in translation an excellent illustration of the philosophical issues
under debate.
We have to wait until the second half of the 20th century to witness the most
significant changes occurring in the discipline. Not only do we see the study
of translation becoming an autonomous, institutionalized discipline,
characterized by a changing interdisciplinary approach, but we also follow
its development in response to various influences coming from outer stimuli
(machine translation) as well as from allied and less related disciplines such
as literature and linguistics, mathematics, functionalism cultural studies, and
cognitive theory.
For present purposes our chief concern is to track the emergence and
evolution of Translation Studies from 1950 onwards by undertaking a close
examination of two of its most vigorous traditions, the German- speaking
Übersetzungswissenschaft and English Translation Studies, bearing in mind
their differing epistemological traditions and the impact of this on future
development of the discipline. As far as the major problems, research focus
and influences of these two branches are concerned we shall look into some
of the difficulties encountered during the initial scientific implementation, as
well into the main changes within the discipline due to the influence of other
scientific fields. This becomes particularly apparent when linguistics gives
way to other research areas which succeeded in ruling the study of
translation. We will also consider how these turning points in the
interdisciplinary approach of the discipline have shaped its object of study,
its theorization and its methodology and terminology.
Further, we will examine future perspectives for Translation Studies which
fields deserve particular attention, what insights can be improved and which
questions remain unsolved.
Finally, we shall attempt a possible characterization of the present Prevailing
interdisciplinary approach in Translation Studies, as well as of its present
state, considering whether and how it has overcome its legitimating crisis,
which are the prevailing paradigms, how the balance between them is to be
assessed and their influence in shaping the discipline.
I. Translation Studies- A bit of history
Historiographical approaches in Translation Studies are often regarded with
a certain suspicion, as being somewhat archaeological and peripheral. This
prejudice rests on the assumption that Historiographical research has had
only little import on the evolution of Translation Studies, if any. Another
reason for the neglect of historiographical surveys can perhaps be found in
Translation Approaches 14
the high demands imposed by the uneven evolution of the discipline which
distracted attention from a diachronical philogenetic perspective.
This deficit really needs to be upheld. Indeed, after such a revolutionary
phase in the history of this new discipline no general appraisal has been
undertaken so far of its complex evolution. The main purpose of this paper
therefore is to draw an interpretative account of the state of the art.
Of old, theoretical considerations on translation have been associated with
reflexions on poetics, rhetoric, grammar, literature and hermeneutics. The
reason for this mixed treatment seems to reflect the subservient
acknowledgment of translation as a utilitarian tool, geared towards other
purposes- to disseminate religion, to improve the style of the vernacular, to
take hold of foreign literary themes, motives and forms, to learn a foreign
language, to exercise grammar, to interpret the biblical texts, and so forth.
In the first half of the 20th century, translation was considered an important
tool that could give access to the text under study in which the problems of
philological research were visible. For the literary critic, translation would
provide a particular case of interpretation and also of fixation of older texts,
and the comparison of several different translations would shed some light
on dubious, corrupt passages.
II. Translation and philosophy of language
During the whole 20th century, philosophical enquiry rediscovered the
importance of reflecting on the language used to discuss philosophical
problems. As a result of this concern, the philosophy of language became an
autonomous discipline, in the sequence of the development of logical
analysis of linguistic expressions that occurred in analytical philosophy,
particularly with Wittgenstein.
As for the meaning of a word, Wittgenstein drew more attention to its use,
i.e., its situational context, whereas Bloomfield stressed the response a
linguistic form would cause upon the receiver of the message. A long the
same line of behaviouristic semantics, Quine defended stimulus meaning,
which depended on the assent of the receptor to the stimulus he had received,
according to which he inferred about its truth and verosimilitude. For Quine,
translation would imply the investigation of the semantic structures of a
language, based on the analysed behaviour. Hence the indeterminacy of
translation, as the translator can never be sure whether the translated text is
interpreted by the addressee in the same way as it was intended by the
sender.
Translation Approaches 15
The fact that the object to be studied is at the same time its own instrument
of analysis has been the cause of many difficulties. In fact, there are two
languages involved: an object-language and a metalanguage, the latter being
used to explain the former. And that is where translation comes into the
debate. In fact, translation becomes a pertinent example of the difficulties
encountered by philosophers of language, namely the difficulty of ensuring
the comprehension of the expressions of a language by its speakers.
Also in both orientations of analytical philosophy, the problem of
translations is raised. In the case of logic empirism, defended by
Bertrand Russel and Rudolf Carnap, philosophical language (scientific
language in general) is to be translated into an ideal language through a
formal construct, whereas the supporters of linguistic phenomenalism
(George Edward Moore and Gilbert Ryle) wished to reduce philosophical
language to common language. In both cases, the question was how this
translation was to be achieved. Seen from this viewpoint, translation differed
only in degree from other types of linguistic interaction.
In the sixties, philosophical research on meaning underwent a significant
change by becoming eminently pragmatic, i.e., the use of language and the
function of expressions in a given context became the main focus of the
debate. Therefore, one resorted to translation in order to explain the
relationship between language and the world through the concepts of truth
and reference, as pragmatics presupposes an underlying semantics, which in
turn is based on conditions of truth.
III. The growth of a new discipline
IV.
An important conquest in translation studies research in the 20th century is
unquestionably the move from translation theory to translation science
(Übersetzungswissenschasft), supported by the progressive
institutionalization of Translation Studies as a relatively autonomous
discipline at university level. The growth of a scientific community of
translation scholars as well as the increasing number of congresses and
publications in the field also contributed to the discipline becoming ―a
success story of the 1980s‖ (Lefevere 1992).
From the second half of the 20th century onwards, linguistics takes over
translation studies, in an attempt to respond to the demands of machine
translation, which had pointed out the main morphological and
Syntactical problems to be tackled, and had hoped to find a quick and
efficient answer to them from linguistics. From the fifties up to the end of
the seventies, it seemed only natural to look at translation mainly as an
Translation Approaches 16
operation between languages. In fact, during this ―golden age‖ of the
linguistic approach to translation (Fawcett 1997) – others prefer to call it
―imperialism of linguistics over translation‖ (Octavio Paz 1971) – linguistic
investigation has been preoccupied with trying to solve morphological and
syntactical problems. Some of these, however, and above all semantic
problems, proved resistant to a strict semantic analysis, i.e., it soon became
clear that in order to come up with an adequate solution for many translation
problems the linguistic approach had to be backed up by extralinguistic
information. The situational context of each act of communication at
translation represents had to be taken into account, if one was to expect
pertinent help from linguistics to Translation Studies.
Not only did certain semantic problems remain unsolved (ambiguity,
pronominalization, deitics, grammatical polysemy), but also literary texts
were excluded from linguistic research on translation on account of their
great variability. Furthermore, the definitions of translation provided so far
had also shown their shortcomings, as they were exclusively centred on the
linguistic aspect of the translational operation and aimed primarily at
equivalence at different levels (Nida 1964, Catford1965, Jäger 1975, Wilss
1977,Koller 1979).
Equivalence is considered by linguistic-oriented translation as the basic,
founding relationship between source and target text, without which it is
impossible to speak of translation. This notion of equivalence, however,
soon became a stumbling-block for those who viewed translation mainly as a
cultural, functional entity rather than a linguistic one, and it finally brought
about a radical schism in the field of Translation Studies.
V. Linguistics and beyond
To do justice to the linguistic approach of translation, we must avoid
oversimplifications such as restricting it to a mere contrastive exercise
between linguistic systems (as it may have been suggested by some research
done for machine translation). After all, a significant change had taken place
inside the linguistic approach which often seems to have been
underestimated: it concerns the fact of considering translation as a
manifestation of parole and not of langue, thus moving away from a static,
merely systemic structural comparison between linguistic codes, as it is
mistakenly assumed, more often than not.
Beyond this important step, the search for a definition of translation also led
to the establishment of the discipline as an autonomous field of enquiry in its
Translation Approaches 17
own right. Leaning on the reputed status linguistics had by then acquired,
Translation Studies fought for a proper place of its own.
The institutionalization of the discipline at university level, the formation of
a scientific community and a well defined subject-matter made it
scientifically eligible as a field of research which could also be financed.
However, although having largely contributed to the initial scientifization of
Translation Studies, linguistics had to step aside and give way to other
disciplines. All of a sudden, what had been taken as the main issue to deal
with and settle in the first place -the definition of translation, its main
element (equivalence) and the conditions under which this could be attained-
ceased to be important, in other words, it became relative.
After reaching this impasse (the legitimation crisis mentioned by Werner
Koller), some scholars took a closer view of the conditions which enabled
the progress of a scientific field. Influenced by Thomas Kuhn and Karl
Popper, two translation scholars - Gideon Toury (1980) and Hans J. Vermeer
(1986)- proposed quite different approaches to translation from its outside.
First, they considered the definition of translation as no longer essential,
advancing that a translation is everything that can be considered as such,
including pseudotranslations (Toury 1980) or that one can assume what a
translation is and thus proceed to more interesting, pertinent questions
(Reiss/Vermeer 1984, Vermeer 1986).
Besides, the linguistic aspect of translation was completely over ridden by
the cultural one, which became predominant. Translation was to be seen as
an operation of cultural transfer (Vermeer 1986), as a subsystem within each
cultural polysystem and a result of historical and cultural conditioning
(Toury 1980).
Once the linguistic side of translation had been pulverized in culture, and the
question of equivalence dismissed as irrelevant, 'the door laid open for all
kinds of assault to translation on the part of other disciplines.
And so it happened that functionalism took the reins of Translation Studies,
thus intending to banish linguistics from the field. The main point of this
shift is the change of focus: away from the source text, its linguistic
concretion and its author (disenthronement of the source text is the key word)
to the 88 hypostatized reader of the translation, to his communicative
situation in the target context, to the cultural transfer as the paramount
operation in translational activity and to the translator as its main and
almighty agent.
The aim (function, Skopos) of the translation, as well as the text type, would
automatically determine the strategy of translation.
Translation Approaches 18
This evolution did not take place all of a sudden. The terrain for
Functionalism had previously been prepared by the communicative approach,
mainly embodied by what is generally called the Leipzig School. lts main
representants –Otto Kade, Gert Jäger and Albrecht Neubert- had advocated
that translation should be seen as a special communicative act. Therefore,
linguistic investigation was seen as an important part of the process, but it
needed to be set up in a larger framework, a communicative one, in order to
account for the situational constraints which had immediate repercussions on
the textualization of the target text message in its new communicative
context. The difference between the Leipzig School and functionalists is that
the former still considered linguistics as a pertinent discipline to the study of
translation, whereas the latter took the communicative aspect of translation
as the only and exclusive one to be dealt with by a general theory of
translation.
Functionalism was also welcome as it was in accordance with the spirit of
time, dominated by pragmatization and teleological concerns (Wilss1992).
Its impact on translation also brought about a methodological change: a
deductive approach was strongly favoured as the only one that could make
the discipline advance (Vermeer 1986). Concrete translations were thus
banned from research and substituted by highly idealized models which
abstracted from annoying variables.
Needless to say, the crash between the linguistic and the functionalistic
approach to translation could not be avoided. The monopolization of
Translation Studies moved from linguistics to functionalism, therefore
opening a new period in the evolution of the discipline.
One might think that the turmoil caused by functionalism within Translation
Studies, which almost split it into two separate and irreconcilable camps, has
been the only fracture that has hindered the consolidation and the public
recognition of this new research area. But by the middle of the eighties,
another significant move took place which has brought some considerable
shifts in the focussing of translation: the cognitive turn.
For the evolution of the discipline the study of the mental processes that take
place in the translator's head when he is translating has had far reaching
consequences: the focus turned away from idealized models towards existing
translations, and from products to processes; methodologically, it set out an
hypothetical-deductive approach in translational research, the initial
hypothesis being verified by empirical experiments carried out with several
subjects.
The emphasis on empirism was also accompanied by a keen interest in
cognitive disciplines, which permitted the development of cognitive
Translation Approaches 19
linguistics. This evolution has enabled a better understanding of the mental
linguistic structures and processes, which could be more adequately
described and explained now, particularly as far as the representation and the
processing of linguistic knowledge in interaction with other kinds of
knowledge is concerned.
Leaving behind it the behaviouristic approach to mental processes, the
cognitive turn opened up a new era not only in psychology, but also in
Translation Studies, among other fields. The need of researching cognitive
phenomena comprehensively brought about the interdisciplinary approach in
cognitive linguistics which could draw from psychology, computer science
and neurophysiology.
V. Translations studies and Übersetzungswissenschaft
If one looks at the field of translation research in general, one can trace two
main streams which reveal quite different focalizations upon its subject
matter, apart from stemming from slightly divergent scientific backgrounds:
English Translation Studies and German
Übersetzungswissenschaft.
The former denomination is ambivalent, as it represents simultaneously the
overall English designation of the discipline (every investigation on
translation falls within its scope) and in its narrow acception it refers
exclusively to a part of this research done in English. This latter branch is
almost exclusively centred on literary translation, dealing mainly with
cultural and ideological constraints acting upon translated texts and
excluding linguistic analysis altogether (Toury, Venuti, Bassnett, Lefevere).
The name of the new discipline is in accordance with the epistemological
tradition common in English, by which the designation attributed to a
specific subject-matter in the humanities only involves the term ―studies‖
(cultural studies literary studies, and so on).
As far as German Übersetzungswissenschaft is concerned, it emerges
out of a different tradition which goes back to Dilthey, according to which
one can differentiate between Geisteswissenschaften (humanities) and
Naturvvissenschaften (natural sciences), each one following quite different
methods, hermeneutic in the former, explanatory in the latter, although
sharing a similar designation.
Translation Approaches 20
As early as 1813, Friedrich Schleiermacher coined the word
Übersetzungswissenschaft (in analogy with Alterthumswissenschaft for
History). This designation was not to be revived until the second half of the
20th century by the Leipzig School, comprehending every scientific study of
translation.
That this kind of objective, systematic study was necessary, as Nida (1964)
and many others after him pointed out, thus justifying the designation
Übersetzungswissenschaft, does not necessarily mean that the discipline
claims to attain a scientific predicative force like hat prevailing in the natural
sciences. As Holmes rightly asserts, ―not all Wissenschaften are sciences‖
(1972). But this does not mean one has to look with suspicion at a
designation like Übersetzungswissenschaft either. Gentzler's distorted
evaluation of German Übersetzungswissenschaft is an example of a biased
perspective (1993). In fact, research on translation in German has proved
one of the most innovative, productive and diversified contributions to the
field which would certainly be better known hadn't it been written in
German.
One has only to consider the linguistic approach embodied by Werner Koller
and Wolfram Wilss, the hermeneutic approach represented by Friedrich
Schleiermacher, Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer,
Fritz Paepcke and Radegundis Stolze, the psycholinguistic approach
established by Hans Peter Krings, Wolfgang Lörscher and Frank Königs, the
communicative approach defended by the Leipzig School, the cultural
approach outlined by the research group based in Göttingen and the
functionalistic approach set up by Katharina Reiss, Hans J.Vermeer and
Christiane Nord.
When comparing both scientific traditions, one rapidly concludes that
Translation Studies in English has gone uncompromised, systematic way,
focusing exclusively on literary translation, obliterating linguistic research
from its scope and focusing its attention on cultural and political constraints
which act upon literary translation, adopting the political agenda prevailing
in Cultural Studies and thus examining questions of power like colonialism,
feminism and manipulation of literary fame in translated literature.
On the contrary, German Übersetzungswissenschaft has developed a highly
systematic, exhaustive analysis of the object under investigation –
translation- from quite heterogeneous perspectives: as a linguistic operation,
as a communicative act, as a semiotic process, as a hermeneutic undertaking,
as a cultural transfer, as a function of its goal,as a textual operation and as a
mental process. Each of these perspectives has been thoroughly investigated,
Translation Approaches 21
and the produced literature is amazing, not only in terms of quantity, but also
in terms of seriousness and depth of analysis, systematic survey and
methodological sophistication. These features have turned it into one of the
most powerful branches of contemporary Translation Studies.
Unfortunately, its influence is not so widespread as it deserves because of
the language barrier -an obstacle which needs to be surmounted.
VI. Interdisciplinary approach
As far as an interdisciplinary approach in the field of translation is oncerned,
one has to consider its origins, the disciplines pertinent to the study of
translation at different moments of its evolution and the various forms this
approach has assumed.
In order to capture the way that originated the concurrence of several
disciplines to Translation Studies, one should remember what happened in
almost every scientific field of research in the last fifty years, namely a
transmigration of the paradigms from natural to human sciences and among
disciplines within each group. In the particular case of translation, the
increasing and changing interdisciplinary approach that has taken the
discipline by assault has been considered a consequence of the initial
hegemony of linguistics over the field. But already in the early phases of
machine translation, mathematics and cybernetics, together with semiotics,
information theory and communication science came to the fore as
disciplines that could help linguistics solve some intricate problems. Their
contribution can be detected in the formalization and algorithmization
mathematics and cybernetics brought about, in the abstraction from
linguistic material and also in the methodological inflexion semiotics
brought to the Discipline, by implementing a deductive method in order to
make Translation Studies advance (Ludskanov 1969). From a semiotic
perspective, communication science and information theory imposed the
conception of language as mere code, of interpretation and translation as
information exchange (Weaver 1949) and called the attention for the
importance of the situational context each act of communication is
embedded in (Leipzig School).
Furthermore, functionalism took up Translation Studies, calling for the
superiority of culture over language, making the function of translation,its
aim and its effect upon the target readers absolute, in an attempt to sweep
away the linguistic approach to translation. As a consequence, teleological
thinking has become pervasive in Translation Studies, as well as the
influence of sociology and action theory (human behaviour is analysed in
terms of action, using language in a certain situational context). Hans
Translation Approaches 22
Vermeer, Justa Holz-Mänttäri, Katharina Reiss and Christiane Nord are the
defenders of the functionalist approach most in evidence, along with many
other followers who combine functionalism with their personal theories.
With the advent of cognitive sciences, psycholinguistic and cognition also
enabled a new insight into processing mechanisms, how understanding and
textual production take place, which cognitive processes are involved and
finally how the translator can cope with translation problems and devise
strategies for their solution (Hans Peter Krings, Wolfgang Lörscher,
Candace Séguinot, Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit).
Hermeneutic thinking has also had a significative role in Translation Studies
as to improve the understanding of a text to be translated. The
Components of the hermeneutic dialogue between which a dialectical
relationship occurs have been equated in different terms: author and reader
by Schleiermacher, reader and text with the fusion of both horizons by
Gadamer. Heidegger searched in etymology a way of winning back a
comprehensive understanding of philosophical key-words by going back to
their Greek roots, and more recently Fritz Paepcke attempted to do similarly
with literary texts (1986), without much success though.
As the discipline of Cultural Studies began to establish itself, a cultural
approach to translation, in particular to literary translation, also gained new
contours (Göttingen project). Although some translation scholars had
already emphasized the relevance of culture in translation (Snell- Hornby
1988, Pym 1992), no attempt had been made to develop an
operationalization of how to handle with cultural problems in translation.
The methodology that was lacking has been developed by a group of
scholars in Gottingen, thus opening new perspectives to this kind of cultural
approach.
Finally, as the text became more and more the linguistic unit of study, it also
became the unit of translation par excellence, as every decision at the micro
level is taken in accordance with the whole text in which it is embedded. Not
only a holistic view of the text imposed itself, but also the feature textuality
was analysed in its subcomponents (Neubert/Shreve 1992).
As to the forms the interdisciplinary approach can assume or has assumed in
Translation Studies in the last fifty years, there are several models to be
considered. Back in 1968, Peter Hartmann made a distinction between a
naïve and a calculated interdisciplinary approach,
the latter being an intentional combination of several disciplines upon the
same subject. Wolfgang Lörscher (1991) differentiated an additive from an
Translation Approaches 23
integrative kind of interdisciplinary work, postulating the latter. In 1997,
Klaus Kaindl devised three different forms of interdisciplinary approach: an
imperialistic one, in which a discipline integrates the structuring of another,
and which corresponds to the linguistic period of Translation Studies; an
importing or instrumentalistic form, in which the results or instruments of
analysis of one or more disciplines are imported to improve the results of
another discipline, and finally a reciprocal form, in which two or more
disciplines cooperate at the same level within the investigation of a certain
domain. For Kaindl, Translation Studies is still a bit far away from this third
type of approach.
Personally, it seems to me the discipline is still in a state of precarious
incipient multidisciplinary work, as no imbrication of the methods and
results of the different disciplines involved has been achieved so far.
Most approaches would have to step out of themselves and match their
views with insights provided by other approaches.
VI. The evolution of translation studies
Seen from a Kuhnian perspective, the evolution of Translation Studies can
perhaps be accounted for in the following terms: first, there is a prescientific,
impressionistic age (more or less up to the second half of the 20th century),
the main interest of which seems to have been the question of fidelity. Then
the scientific era took its first steps, with linguistics claiming hegemony
overt he field -a monoparadigmatic situation, centred round the concept of
equivalence. As this concept allegedly failed to convey adequate answers to
some ensuing problems, a moment of crisis assailed the discipline and was
only superseded by a revolution that set up new paradigms: in stead of
equivalence, the new concepts function, culture and cognition covered the
field.
The only difference as far as Kuhn's model is concerned is that in
Translation Studies the post-paradigmatic situation is not dominated by one
single paradigm which contradicts the previous one, but by three different
ones, none of which imposing itself upon the other two, and with the
linguistic paradigms still active, although in a background position.
The first phase can be called endocentric: it covers the linguistic period of
the discipline that makes up its matrix. Its main concern was the definition
of the object of research, which brought about the establishment of
Translation Studies as an autonomous, scientific discipline. During this
phase, the evolution was naïve, taking place more or less haphazardly,
Translation Approaches 24
although it was already conditioned by outer stimuli, to a certain extent
(machine translation). Then, from the eighties on, there followed an
exocentric phase that deliberately strove to shed the previous paradigm,
linguistics, and was characterized by an explosion of concurrent paradigms-
function, culture, cognition- none of which prevailing over the other two.
The consequence of having no centre and no integration has thus led to a
proliferation of approaches.
When Volker Hansen (1993) points to the ―quiet paradigm change in the
humanities‖ mainly based on constructivism, he certainly hit the mark as far
as the evolution of Translation Studies is concerned. In fact, what Hans
Robert Jauss had already proclaimed back in 1969, namely a change of
paradigm in literary studies, is bluntly postulated by Vermeer (1986) by
taking constructivism as the only way that allows research to advance in the
discipline. According to Vermeer, if you are bound to understand only what
you construct mentally, then you have to start with everyday knowledge, you
have to use common language (and not scientific terminology) to, present
self-evident axioms, to make the basis of a deductive system understandable
on the assumption of previous knowledge (which means constructivism
works within a hermeneutic circle). By considering all these premises, one
can certainly achieve a state in which ―science produces its own objects‖
(Vermeer 1986).
Conclusion
If one wants to draw a picture of the field of Translation Studies at the
moment, there are four tendencies that have dominated it in the last fifty
years: internationalization, a new theory-practice relationship, a growing
empirism and interdisciplinary work. As to the first feature, research on
translation has gradually overcome national frontiers as well as linguistic
barriers, thus becoming a common scientific patrimony. This
internationalization enables the contact between researchers of different
approaches and languages, thus favoring the interaction between them.
Congresses and publications are also open to international debate, making
the scientific community come together and discuss the main problems.
As far as the relationship between theory and practice is concerned, several
changes have taken place over the second half of the 20th
century. At first,
theory was mainly normative, providing instructions on how to practice
translation. Examples of this attitude can be found in the principles of
Translation Approaches 25
translation enunciated by Theodor Savory (1957) and in the rules of
translation presented by Peter Newmark (1973). However, with the advent
of machine translation, the results of translation theory began being put to
the proof. As theoretical investigation advanced and the most serious
syntactic and semantic problems were tackled, there was a certain turn away
from actual translations, considered either as irrelevant to the constitution
and verification of certain theories or carefully selected only in as much as
they could fit the demonstration of a certain theory. Still other theories opted
for the formulation of their axioms without recurring to any empirical
verification whatsoever. As a consequence, a significant methodological turn
took place that gave preference to a deductive approach, eliminating a great
number of variables, thus allowing pertinent generalizations more frequently.
The pragmatic turn launched by the Leipzig School, and even more
meaningfully the psycholinguistic approach as practised by Hans Peter
Krings and Wolfgang Lörscher in Germany, Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit in
Finland and Candace Séguinot in Canada signal the unquestionable move
towards an empirical approach of translational phenomena. The process
studies undertaken so far have led to the testing of hypotheses that have been
put forward, besides allowing for quantitative analysis of several factors at
work in the translation process.
Nowadays, whatever the sustained orientation in research may be,
translation scholars unanimously require the inclusion of an empirical
approach as a way of validating theoretical hypotheses, all the more since
descriptive studies are prevailing in Translation Studies.
Also numerous are the examples of translation methodologies which try to
bridge the gap between theory and practice (Mona Baker 1992, Sandor
Hervey/lan Higgins/Michael Loughridge 1995, Paul Kussmaul 1995, Cay
Dollerup/Vibeke Appel 1995, Wolfram Wilss 1996).
Although many serious efforts have been undertaken to make translation
theory and practice comes near, a certain distance on the part of translators is
still to be felt. This situation raises the question of knowing to what extent
the legitimating crisis of Translation Studies has really been overcome.
Besides, several fundamental questions remain to be solved: a clear,
consensual definition of the object of study, the specification of a
methodology in accordance with the complex object translation represents
the clarification of terminological problems and a stronger, better
interwoven interdisciplinary approach.
Translation Approaches 26
REFERENCES
Albakry, M. (2004); Linguistic and cultural issues in literary translation; Retrieved
November 17, 2006 fromhttp://accurapid.com/journal/29liter.htm
Translation Approaches 27
Bell, R. T. (1998). Psychological/cognitive approaches; In M. Baker
(Ed); Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London & New York: Routledge.
Cohen, A.D. (1984). On taking tests: what the students report. Language testing, 11 (1).
70-81.
Culler, J. (1976). Structuralist poetics: structuralism, linguistics, and the study of
literature. Cornell: Cornell University Press.
Graedler, A.L. (2000). Cultural shock. Retrieved December 6, 2006
fromhttp://www.hf.uio.no/iba/nettkurs/translation/grammar/top7culture.html
Harvey, M. (2003). A beginner's course in legal translation: the case of culture-bound
terms. Retrieved April 3, 2007 fromhttp://www.tradulex.org/Actes2000/harvey.pdf
Hervey, S., & Higgins, I. (1992). Thinking Translation. London & New York: Routledge.
Jaaskelainen, R., (2005). Translation studies: what are they? Retrieved November 11,
2006 from http://www.hum.expertise.workshop.
Jaaskelainen, R., (1999). Tapping the process: an explorative study of cognitive and
effective factors involved in translating. Joensuu: University of Joensuu Publications in
Humanities.
Krings, H.P. (1986). Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German
learners of French. In J. House, & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural
communication (pp. 263-75). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
Leppihalme, R. (1997). Culture bumps: an empirical approach to the translation of
allusions. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Loescher, W. (1991). Translation performance, translation process and translation
strategies. Tuebingen: Guten Narr.
Newmark, P. (1988a). A Textbook of Translation. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.
Newmark, P. (1988b). Approaches to Translation. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.
Newmark, P. (1991). About Translation: Multilingual Matters. Clevedon, Philadelphia,
Adelaide: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Towards a science of translation, with special reference to principles
and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: Brill.
Richards, et al (1985). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics. UK: Longman.
Seguinot, C. (1989). The translation process. Toronto: H.G. Publications.
Venuti, L. (1998). Strategies of translation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
translation studies (pp. 240-244). London and New York: Routledge.
Zhongying, F. (1994). An applied theory of translation. Beijing: Foreign Languages
Teaching & Research Press.
BAKER, M. (1992). ln Other Words. London: Routledge.
BASSNET, S. (l980) Translation Studies. London: Methuen.
BLOOMFIELD, L. (l933) Language. New York: Holt.
CARFORD, J. C. (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation, An Essay in
Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
DOLLERUP, C,; APPEL, V. (eds.) (1995) Teaching Translation and
Interpreting 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
FAWCET, P. (1997) Translation and Language. Linguistic Theories
Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
GENTZLER, E. (1993) Contemporary Translation Theories. London:
Translation Approaches 28
Routledge.
HARTMANN, P. (1968) ―Zur Aufgabe der Linguistik‖. Lingua, 21, 197-
215.
HERVEY, S.; HIGGINS, I.; LOUGHRIDGE, M. (1995) Thinking German
Translation. London: Routledge.
HOLMES, J. S. (1972) ―The Name and Nature of Translation Studies‖. J.
S. HOLMES (1988) Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and
Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 67-80.
JÄGER, G. (1975) Translation and Translationlinguistik (Saale): Max
Niemeyer.
KAINDL, K. (1997) ―Wege der Translationwissenschaft – Ein Beitrag zu
ihrer disziplinären Profilierung―. TEXTconTEXT, 11, 221-246.
KOLLER, W (1995) Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft.
Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer
KUSSMAUL, P. (1995) Training the Translator. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
LEFEVERE, A. (ed.) (1992) Translation / History / Culture. A
Sourcebook. London: Routledge.
LÖRSCHER, W. (1991) Translation Performance, Translation Process
and Translation Strategies. A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen:
Gunter Narr.
LUDZKANOV, A. (1969) Traduction Humaine et Traduction
Automatique. Paris : Centre de Linguistique Quantitative de la Faculté
des Sciences de Paris.
NEUBERT, A.; SHREVE, G. M. (1992) Translation as Text. Ohio: Kent
University Press.
NEWMARK, P. (1973) ―Twenty-three Restricted Rules of Translation‖.
The Incorporated Linguist. 12(1), 9-15.
NIDA, E. A. (1964) Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.
PAEPCKE, F. (1986) Im Übersetzen leben: Übersetzen und
Textvergleich. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
PAZ, O. (1971) Traducción. Literatura y Literalidad. Barcelona:
Tusquets.
PYM, A. (1992) Translation and Text Transfer. An Essay on the
Principles of Intercultural Communication. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
REISS, K.; VERMEER, H.J. (1984) Grundlegung einer allgemeinen
Translationtheorie. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
SAVORY, Th. (1957) The Art of Translation. London: Jonathan Cape.
SHANNON, C.E.; WEAVER, W. (1949) The Mathematical Theory of
Communication. Illinois: Urbana University of Illinois Press.
SNELL-HORNBY, M. (1988) Translation Studies. An Integrated
Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
TOURY, G. (1980) In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Avid: The
Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.
VENUTI, L. (1995) The Translator’s Invisibility. London: Routledge.
Translation Approaches 29
VERMEER, H.J. (1986) Voraussetzungen für eine Translationtheorie.
Einige Kapitel Kultur – und Sprachtheorie. Heidelberg.
WILSS, W. (1977) Übersetzungswissenschaft. Probleme und Methoden.
Stuttgart: Klett.
---- (1992) Übersetzungsfertigkeit. Annäherungen an einen komplexen
übersetzungspraktischen Begriff. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
---- (1996) Übersetzungsunterricht. Eine Einführung. Begriffliche
Grundlagen und methodische Orientierung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
WITTGENSTEIN, L. (1985) Philosophical Investigations. Oxford:
Blackwell.