First Semester Lecture
University Mohammed Seddik Ben Yahia- Jijel
Faculty of Letters and Languages Department of English
Module Theory and Practice of Literary Translation
Master One Civilization and Literature Students
First Semester
Introduction
Translation is a complicated task, during which the meaning of the source-language text should be conveyed to the target-language readers. In other words, translation can be defined as encoding the meaning and form in the target language by means of the decoded meaning and form of the source language. Different theorists state various definitions for translation.
It is necessary to understand the concept of translation as mentioned by many translation theorists to obtain an overall picture of the translation process. Some of these concepts quoted by Jiraphatralikhit, Kaewjan, Klinpoon, Visitwanit (2005: 7) are as follows: Bensoussan (1990) states that translation is closely related to the reading process. Hatim and Mason (1990) suggest that translation is a process involving the negotiation of meaning between producers and receivers of the text. Picken (1989) defines that general translation is a method of transferring oral and written messages from writing to speech or from one language to another. Larson (1984) states that in general translation communicates, as much as possible, the same meaning that was understood by the speakers of the source language, using the normal language form of the receptor language, while maintaining the dynamics of the original source language text. She also expresses that the goal of a translator should be to produce a receptor language text (a translation) that is idiomatic; i.e., one that has the same meaning as the source-language text, but is expressed in the natural form of the receptor language. Nida (1974), cited by Jiraphatralikhit et al. (2005), believes that translating consists of reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language message, first in terms of meaning and second in terms of style. Catford (1965, as cited in Jiraphatralikhit et al. 2005) views translation as the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by the equivalent text material in another language (TL). Bell (1991) views translation as the replacement of a text in one language by an equivalent text in another language. Newmark (1981: 7) indicates that translation is a craft that attempts to replace a written message and/or statement in one language by the same message or statement in another language. Also, he views translation as a science, a skill, an art, and a matter of taste.
As a science, translation includes the knowledge and assessment of the facts and the language that describes them; as a skill, translation contains the appropriate language and acceptable usage; as an art, translation differentiates good writing from bad and involves innovative, intuitive and inspired levels; and lastly, viewing translation as a matter of taste includes the fact that the translator resorts to his/her own preferences; so, the translated text varies from one translator to another. Kelly (2005: 26-27) defines translation as the skill of understanding the source text and rendering it in the target language by using the register, the background knowledge, and other language resources according to the intended purpose. Therefore, a translator is a mediator of the two languages and cultures who can transfer the SL to the TL.
What has been discussed above relates to translation theory, which identifies translation problems and recommends the most appropriate procedure for translation in order to solve the identified problems. So, translation can be explained as a decision-making process and a problem-solving task. It is also a complicated task during which the translator encounters some problems or problematic issues which require observation, identification and finding the suitable solution. The means by which the translator deals with these problems are called strategies. Finding the adequate strategy for solving the above-mentioned problems takes place in the decision-making process.
In a broader term, the process of translation commenced with the birth of the first human being when he started to communicate with his partners to express his thoughts into words. That can be called the initial and the first step in the history of translation. Later on, with the evolvement of human cultures and civilizations, it began to shape up according to the need of the human societies. Different cultures began to preserve their memories in the form of epigraphs on walls or animal skins which we are trying to decode today in our languages as a result of evolution.
1. Philological Theories
Philological theories (also called 'pre-linguistic theories) evolved before the development of modern linguistics, approximately before the Second World War. Philological theories of translation focus primarily on literary texts taking no interest in other fields such as science and technology, commerce, and law. They rely upon ‘philology’ as the study of the development of language, and the classical literary studies.
Philological theories of translating deal with the problem of the equivalence of literary texts by comparing and contrasting the SL and the TL. They also focus on the literary quality, i.e. the form of the text and its stylistic features and rhetorical devices. One of the major preoccupations of philological theories of translating is the discussion of literary works of high quality such as Shakespeare's works.
They are mainly concerned with the comparison of structures in the native and foreign languages, especially the functional correspondence and the literary genres in addition to stylistics and rhetoric. Nida explicitly states: The philological theories of translation are, of course based on a philological approach to literary analysis. They simply go one step further; in place of treating the form in which the text was first composed, they deal with corresponding structures in the source and receptor languages and attempt to evaluate their equivalences ……Philological theories of translation are normally concerned with all kinds of stylistic features and rhetorical devices. (Nida, 1976: 67-68)
2. Linguistic Theories
In the mid-twentieth century, a discernible shift in translation theory occurred, with the period heralded as a golden age for linguistic equivalence in translation theory. Most notable was Eugene Nida, whose thoughts proved influential to secular theorists as well as biblical scholars. Others working from a linguistic perspective included Roman Jakobson, Jiří Levý and J. C. Catford. Though initially popular, enthusiasm for linguistic equivalence would diminish later in the twentieth century.
Eugene Nida
The American linguist Eugene Nida (1914–2011) is recognized as the most influential theorist in twentieth century Bible Translation and is best known for the concept of dynamic equivalence, later renamed “functional equivalence.” He began work on translation in the 1940s, but his theories on equivalence came to prominence only in the 1960s when he published full-scale, technical descriptions in two books, Toward a Science of Translating (1964) and The Theory and Practice of Translation (1969). He differentiated between two types of equivalence: formal and dynamic. Formal equivalence (later, “formal correspondence”) attempts to reproduce ST surface structure as closely as possible, whereas the preferred dynamic equivalence attempts to reproduce the same reader response among target audience readers as that found among ST readers (Nida and Taber 1969:24).
Nida’s model was founded upon Noam Chomsky’s formulation of a generative-transformational grammar (1957), although Chomsky later warned against using his linguistic theory for translation: “The existence of deep-seated formal universals...implies that all languages are cut to the same pattern, but does not imply that there is any point by point correspondence between particular languages. It does not, for example, imply that there must be some reasonable procedure for translating between languages” (Chomsky 1965:30).
J. C. Catford
In 1965, J. C. Catford (1917–2009) published A Linguistic Theory of Translation, in which he attempted to use a Hallidayan and Firthian linguistic model as the basis for a general translation theory. He went further than Nida and others in adopting ideas and terminology from linguistics, insisting that, “the theory of translation is essentially a theory of applied linguistics” (Catford 1965:19). This sentiment appears to be somewhat restrictive for contemporary Bible translation studies, where a more interdisciplinary approach incorporating sociological and cultural concerns might be preferred.
Catford’s work represented a detailed attempt to apply linguistic studies to translation theory in a systematic fashion. It is striking, though, that contemporary writers have almost unanimously dismissed his ideas, mostly because the theory was too prescriptive, overly one-dimensional (in that it operated mainly at the sentence level), and characteristic of the growing interest in machine translation in the 1960s which tended to oversimplify translation by ignoring cultural factors. Even by the 1980s, less than 20 years after it was published, one reviewer dismissed his book.
3. Philosophical Theories
The twentieth century would see remarkable evolution in the development of translation theory; most of which occurred in the period after 1950, but a number of important contributions were made in the first half of the century. These can be broadly described as “philosophical theories of translation” with Ezra Pound and Walter Benjamin representing the most important thinkers in what George Steiner dubs the age of “philosophic-poetic theory and definition” (1998:249). They had particular influence upon later post-modern and deconstructionist translators and, from the perspective of this thesis, their views were clearly influential upon subsequent theorists such as Lawrence Venuti.
Ezra Pound
Always experimental, the influential poet Ezra Pound (1885–1972) varied between domesticating and archaizing strategies, but a consistent theme throughout was his insistence that translation seeks first to absorb and transform the ideas of the source text (ST) rather than to reproduce a set of words.
As is typical of archaizing strategies, the English target text (TT) is not necessarily readable, but that was not the goal. The experimental nature of Pound, his willingness to change focus, and his challenge for translators to view their work as creative forces, can provide interesting insights for contemporary Bible translators, where varied target cultures provide the kind of suitable “canvas” upon which their work may be considered in new creative ways.
Walter Benjamin
Walter Benjamin (1892–1940) was a German literary critic; sociologist and philosopher who penned a highly influential essay on translation in 1923 titled Die Aufgabe des Ubersetzers (The Task of the Translator). It was originally produced as an introduction to a collection of translated poems (Baudelaire’s Tableaux Parisiens) and is clearly indebted to German Romantic scholars such as Friedrich Schleiermacher, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Wilhelm von Humboldt. Pivotal to Benjamin’s view is the argument that translation should not serve to reproduce the meaning of the source text. Rather, translation served to continue the life of the original by operating in conjunction with it. Benjamin saw translations as giving an “afterlife” to the ST and did not therefore replace but extend the original.
One of the most prominent proponent of these theories is also George Steiner, who claims that his book After Babel (1975) is the ‘first systematic investigation of the theory and practice of translation since the eighteen century.’ He primarily emphasizes the psychological and intellectual functioning of the mind of translator. He elucidates that meaning and understanding underlie the translation process, averring that a theory of translation is essentially a theory of semantic transfer from SL into TL. He defines his ‘hermeneutic approach’ as “ the investigation of what it means to ‘ understand a piece of oral speech or written text, and the attempt to diagnose the process in terms of a general model of meaning” (Steiner,1975:249.)
He introduces his model in what he calls ‘Hermeneutic Motion’ to describe the process of literary translation. He looks upon the act of translation in the context of human communication across barriers of language, culture, time and personality, thus subdividing this motion into four stages (or moves). The first move is termed trust or faith, which consists of the translator’s assumption that the source text contains ‘a sense to be extracted and retrieved into and via his own language, although this is generally an unconscious action. The second move is referred to as the aggression, penetration or decipherment, in which the translator “invades, extracts and brings home” the meaning of the original. The third move is termed ‘incorporation, embodiment or appropriative use. Translation can introduce new elements into the target linguistic and cultural system. The fourth and final stage or move is labeled compensation, restitution or fidelity; the translator must work to restore in his language what he has failed to recover from the original text.
References
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Eugene A, Nida. Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: Brill, 1964.
Faruquzzaman, Akan. Rezaul, Karim. Abdullah, Mohammad Kabir Chowdhury. An Analysis of Arabic- English Translation: Problems and Prospects. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, v10, issue1, 2019.
Jean-Paul, Vinay, Jean Darbelnet. Stilistique Comparée de l’Anglais et du Français, Paris, Didier, 1966.
Jeremy, Munday. Introducing Translation Studies, Theories and applications. Routledge, London, 2001.
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary. 12th edition. Oxford University Press, .2011