Different Approaches to Translation

Translation Approaches 1

Different Approaches to Translation

Pejman Jalayeri

Sheikh Bahaie University

March 2010


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.


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

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.


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.


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.


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)


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


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).


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,


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


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,


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


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


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,


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 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.


REFERENCES

Albakry, M. (2004); Linguistic and cultural issues in literary translation; Retrieved

November 17, 2006 fromhttp://accurapid.com/journal/29liter.htm

http://accurapid.com/journal/29liter.htm


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:

http://www.hf.uio.no/iba/nettkurs/translation/grammar/top7culture.html

http://www.tradulex.org/Actes2000/harvey.pdf

http://www.hum.expertise.workshop/


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.


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.

Documents

Different Approaches to Translation