Lecture 7
Theory and practice of
translation in the 20th
and early 21st century
Theory and practice of translation in the 20th
and early 21st century
1. James Fitzmaurice-Kelly’s entry on translation in Encyclopaedia
Britannica (1911).
2. Ezra Pound and his influence on poetic translation in the 20th
century.
3. Translations of Russian classics by Constance Garnett.
4. Walter Benjamin and his essay “The Task of the Translator”.
5. Roman Jakobson and his essay “On Linguistic Aspects of
Translation”
6. Jiří Levý’s concept of literary translation.
7. Theodore Savory’s “The Art of Translation”.
8. John Catford’s “A Linguistic Theory of Translation”.
9. Eugene Nida’s theory of “dynamic” or “functional equivalence”.
10. Peter Newmark’s contribution to theory of translation.
11. Vladimir Nabokov’s translation activity.
12. Mary Snell-Hornby’s integrated approach to translation studies.
13. Lawrence Venuti and “translator’s invisibility”.
14. Translation studies in the 20th-century Russia.
James Fitzmaurice-Kelly’s entry on translation in Encyclopaedia
Britannica (1911).
A general entry on translation in the 11th
edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica in
1911 was written by James FitzmauriceKelly (1857–1923), Professor of Spanish
Language and Literature at the
University of Liverpool.
(for self-study)
Ezra Pound and his influence on poetic translation in the
20th century.
Ezra Pound
(1885–1972)
Ezra Pound and his influence on poetic translation in the
20th century.
When he began translating and writing
about translation in the 1910s, the
translation of older poetry into English
was dominated by the use of pseudoarchaic English. Words like ‘hath’ and
‘methinks’ were meant to indicate the
age of the source text.
Ezra Pound and his influence on poetic translation in the
20th century.
In the hands of good poets like Dante Gabriel
Rossetti and Charles Swinburne, the method
produced glamorously romantic translations.
Inferior poets produced translations which made
the great poets of the past sound all alike and
equally irrelevant to the present.
Ezra Pound and his influence on poetic translation in the
20th century.
Ezra Pound is remembered as the translator and
theorist who broke that tradition.
His letters and essays urged translation into fully
modern English and advocated free verse as an
English equivalent to quantitative or syllabic
verse.
His influential translations taught translators how
to use a neutral modern, semi-formal diction to
convey a simultaneous sense of antiquity and
timelessness.
Ezra Pound and his influence on poetic translation in the
20th century.
Pound experimented with using a specific
earlier period of English, or with mixing
different periods on purpose, to call to
mind the world-view of its particular
time and convey ideas not available to
modern English.
Ezra Pound and his influence on poetic translation in the
20th century.
In contrast to the anti-translation attitude
to poetry (‘Poetry is what is lost in
translation’), Pound advocated respect
for the English tradition of translation,
calling attention particularly to the
beauties of Elizabethan translation.
Ezra Pound and his influence on poetic translation in the
20th century.
He pointed out that Elizabethans saw
earlier literature not as a set of words to
be faithfully reproduced, but as a set of
ideas to be absorbed and refashioned.
Ezra Pound and his influence on poetic translation in the
20th century.
For Pound, translation is a form of
criticism, its purpose for readers is to
point out and make accessible works of
importance; its purpose for writers is to
help them, in their struggle to match the
voice of another, to find their own.
Translations of Russian classics by Constance Garnett.
Constance Garnett (1861–1946) translated
a substantial portion of the classical
(19th-century)
corpus
of
Russian
literature, with the exception of its
poetry.
Translations of Russian classics by Constance Garnett.
Constance Garnett was responsible for the
vogue for Russian writing in England.
Constance Garnett’s translations made
Russian literature accessible to an
English language public.
Translations of Russian classics by Constance Garnett.
Katherine Mansfield wrote to Constance
Garnett:
‘My generation (I am 32) and the younger
generation owe you more than we
ourselves are able to realize. These
books have changed our lives, no less.
What could it be like to be without
them!’
Translations of Russian classics by Constance Garnett.
In
particular,
Garnett’s
versions
of
Chekhov revolutionized the art of the
short story, producing major influence
on K. Mansfield and D. H. Lawrence.
Translations of Russian classics by Constance Garnett.
Constance Garnett about translation:
The qualifications for a translator are to be in
sympathy with the author he is translating,
and most important of all to be in love with
words and interested in all their meanings.
The language of a country is the soul of its
people, and if you debase the language you
debase the people and rob them of their
heritage.
Translations of Russian classics by Constance Garnett.
Constance Garnett about translation:
The desire to modernise an author arises from
ignorance of the past and from bad taste. I
have always tried to translate the Russians into
the language of the period in which they wrote,
which is of course possible with Russian
literature, since it is all relatively modern. It
would show grotesque insensibility to produce
a translation of Gogol’s Dead Souls, written at
the same time as Pickwick, in the language of
today’s newspapers. I am particularly proud of
having translated Dead Souls into English of
the period in which it was written.
Translations of Russian classics by Constance Garnett.
Constance Garnett about translation:
I agree there are obvious limits to this: there
would be no advantage in trying to translate
‘The Odyssey’ into the language of Chaucer—
on the other hand no one would want to
translate it into modern slang. Thus with Dead
Souls, one cannot translate the language of
Russian serfs before their emancipation into
that of the proletariat of today. One’s aim
should always be to translate into the language
of the corresponding way of life.
Walter Benjamin and his essay “The Task of the Translator”
Walter Benjamin (1892–1940),
German-Jewish essayist and
translator, set down his
thoughts on translation
theory in his pivotal essay
“The Task of the Translator”
(1923).
Walter Benjamin and his essay “The Task of the Translator”
W. Benjamin argues that translation which only
renders the meaning is bad translation.
The question of a work’s ‘translatability’ is two-
fold. It can mean: will the work ever find its
proper translator among all its possible
readers; or—and more to the point—does it,
by its nature, permit translation?
Walter Benjamin and his essay “The Task of the Translator”
W. Benjamin sees the ultimate purpose of
translation in expressing the innermost
relation between languages.
He further argues that this purpose can be
realized as languages are related in that
which they wish to say.
Walter Benjamin and his essay “The Task of the Translator”
The task of a translator is to find in the
translator’s language that hidden structure
which can awake an echo of the original.
W. Benjamin emphasizes that fidelity in the
rendering of individual words can almost
never carry over fully the sense they have
in the original, as the sense of individual
words acquires significance only in
connection with the manner of expression.
Walter Benjamin and his essay “The Task of the Translator”
In particular, literalness in regard to syntax
destroys any rendering of sense whatever
and results in unintelligibility.
Roman Jakobson and his essay “On Linguistic Aspects of
Translation”
Roman Jakobson (1896–1982), literary
theorist and linguist, in his essay ‘On
Linguistic Aspects of Translation’ extends
the significance of translation to include
intralingual and intersemiotic translation.
Roman Jakobson and his essay “On Linguistic Aspects of
Translation”
Three ways of interpreting a verbal sign:
it may be translated into other signs of the
same language (intralingual translation),
into another language (interlingual
translation),
or into another, nonverbal system of
symbols (intersemiotic translation).
Roman Jakobson and his essay “On Linguistic Aspects of
Translation”
Jakobson’s emphasis on the functional role of
linguistic elements in the translated text
had a positive effect on the work of poetry
translators.
Regarding poetry by definition as
untranslatable, Jakobson believed in the
inevitability of ‘creative transposition’.
Jiří Levý’s concept of literary translation.
Jiří Levý (1926–1967),
a Czech theorist and historian of
literature
“The Art of Translation” (1963)
Jiří Levý’s concept of literary translation.
Levý places literary translation within a
general communicative theory of
translation.
As the translator cannot bring everything
across, it is important to decide firmly what
elements of the work must be preserved in
order for it to function as a whole in its new
language.
Jiří Levý’s concept of literary translation.
Translation is a hybrid phenomenon, which
involves contradiction between the foreign and
the native.
The translator’s task is to minimize the conflict,
and to put together a textual whole which will
function in its new context without calling too
much attention to the fact that it is a
translation.
Jiří Levý’s concept of literary translation.
In his book he also talks about the ‘principle of
realist translation’.
“A good translator must above all be an efficient
reader, a reader who refashions the work for
another reader who is not to be made
conscious of the kind of performance the
translator is involved in.”
Jiří Levý’s concept of literary translation.
Levý compares translation to the
performing arts, especially dramatic
performance.
He sees the Stanislawskian theatre training
as the closest analogy to the education
of a good translator.
Theodore Savory’s “The Art of Translation”.
1952
Theodore Savory published in London
“The Art of Translation”
Theodore Savory’s “The Art of Translation”.
Th. Savory differentiates between four types of translation:
1) perfect translation – translation of purely informative
phrases;
2) adequate translation – translation of fiction, where it is
the content that is relevant, not the manner of
expression;
3) translation of classical works of literature, where the form
is as important as the content;
4) translation of scientific and technical materials called for
by practical needs.
Theodore Savory’s “The Art of Translation”.
The essence of translation consists in making a
choice.
A translator has to answer consecutively three
questions:
1) What did the author say?
2) What did he mean by that?
3) How it can be rendered?
Theodore Savory’s “The Art of Translation”.
Object
of translation
content
of the original
form
of the original
the author’s
communicative
intention
Theodore Savory’s “The Art of Translation”.
A translator should steer the middle course
between literal and free translation, so that
on the one hand, the translation reads like
an original text, and on the other hand, it
preserves fidelity to the source text.
Th. Savory believes that a translator has the
right to borrow successful findings of his
predecessors.
John Catford’s “A Linguistic Theory of Translation”.
John Catford
“A Linguistic Theory of Translation: an Essay
on Applied Linguistics” (1965).
John Catford’s “A Linguistic Theory of Translation”.
Catford proposed very broad types of translation in
terms of three criteria:
1. The extent of translation (full translation vs
partial translation);
2. The grammatical rank at which the translation
equivalence is established (rank-bound translation
vs. unbounded translation);
3. The levels of language involved in translation
(total translation vs. restricted translation).
John Catford’s “A Linguistic Theory of Translation”.
Catford raises the issue of untranslatability with a new
perspective.
linguistic untranslatability
difference
between SL and TL
cultural untranslatability
absence of relevant
situational features
in the TL
John Catford’s “A Linguistic Theory of Translation”.
John Catford was very much criticized for his linguistic
theory of translation.
One of the strongest criticisms came from Mary SnellHornby (1988), who considers that the concept of
equivalence in translation is an illusion.
She asserts that the translation process cannot simply
be reduced to a linguistic exercise, as claimed by
Catford, since there are also other factors, such as
textual, cultural and situational aspects, which
should be taken into consideration when translating.
John Catford’s “A Linguistic Theory of Translation”.
In other words, Mary Snell-Hornby does not
believe that linguistics is the only discipline
which enables people to carry out a
translation, since translating involves
different cultures and different situations at
the same time and they do not always match
from one language to another.
Eugene Nida’s theory of “dynamic” or “functional
equivalence”.
In 1964 Eugene Nida, American
pioneer in development of theory
and practice of Bible translation,
first formulated the concept of
“dynamic” or “functional
equivalence” in translation, which
was developed in numerous books
and articles over the past decades.
Eugene Nida’s theory of “dynamic” or “functional
equivalence”.
“A translation of dynamic equivalence aims at
complete naturalness of expression and tries
to relate the receptor to modes of behavior
relevant within the context of his own
culture”
Eugene Nida
Eugene Nida’s theory of “dynamic” or “functional
equivalence”.
“The translator must be a person who can draw
aside the curtains of linguistic and cultural
differences so that people may see clearly the
relevance of the original message”
Eugene Nida
Eugene Nida’s theory of “dynamic” or “functional
equivalence”.
“An easy and natural style in translating, despite
the extreme difficulty of producing it […] is
nevertheless essential to producing in the
ultimate receptors a response similar to that
of the original receptors”
Eugene Nida
Eugene Nida’s theory of “dynamic” or “functional
equivalence”.
SOURCE LANGUAGE
RECEPTOR LANGUAGE
TEXT
TRANSLATION
ANALYSIS
RESTRUCTURING
TRANSFER
Nida’s model of the translation process
Eugene Nida’s theory of “dynamic” or “functional
equivalence”.
Typical of other theorists in the Anglo-American
tradition,
Nida
has
argued
that
dynamic
equivalence is consistent with a notion of accuracy.
The
dynamically
equivalent
translation
does
not
indiscriminately use “anything which might have
special impact and appeal for receptors”; it rather
“means thoroughly understanding not only the
meaning of the source text but also the manner in
which the intended receptors of a text are likely to
understand it in the receptor language”.
Eugene Nida’s theory of “dynamic” or “functional
equivalence”.
For
Nida,
accuracy
in
translation
depends
on
generating an equivalent effect in the targetlanguage culture:
“the receptors of a translation should comprehend the
translated text to such an extent that they can
understand how the original receptors must have
understood the original text”
Eugene Nida’s theory of “dynamic” or “functional
equivalence”.
The dynamically equivalent translation is “interlingual
communication” which overcomes the linguistic and
cultural differences that impede it.
Yet the understanding of the foreign text and culture is
initiated and controlled by the target language
culture, it is in fact an interested interpretation,
and therefore it seems less an exchange of
information than an appropriation of a foreign text
for domestic purposes.
Eugene Nida’s theory of “dynamic” or “functional
equivalence”.
Nida’s
advocacy
of
domesticating
translation
is
grounded on a transcendental concept of humanity
as an essence that remains unchanged over time
and space.
“As linguists and anthropologists have discovered, that
which unites mankind is much greater than that
which divides, and hence there is, even in cases of
very disparate languages and cultures, a basis for
communication”
Eugene Nida’s theory of “dynamic” or “functional
equivalence”.
Nida undertook a series of field trips in Africa and Latin
America, during which he worked with missionary
translators on linguistic problems, and searched for
potential native translators. He emphasized the
need to provide translators with better models,
resources, and training, building a translations
network and organizational structure that became
the
global
United
Program (UBS).
Bible
Societies
Translations
Eugene Nida’s theory of “dynamic” or “functional
equivalence”.
Nida’s concept of dynamic equivalence in fact
links the translator to the missionary.
Both the missionary and the translator must
find the dynamic equivalent in the target
language so as to establish the relevance of
the Bible in the target culture.
Peter Newmark’s contribution to theory of translation.
The British translation theorist
Peter Newmark, influenced
by the work of Nida, feels
that the difference between
the source language and
the target language would
always be a major problem,
thus making total
equivalence virtually
impossible.
Peter Newmark’s contribution to theory of translation.
He replaces the terms “formal equivalence” and
“dynamic
equivalence”
with
“semantic
translation” and “communicative translation”,
and alters the focus of the translation back to
the source text with his support for a literal
approach.
Peter Newmark’s contribution to theory of translation.
Newmark defines the act of translation as
transferring the meaning of a text from one
language to another, taking care mainly of the
functional relevant meaning.
Peter Newmark’s contribution to theory of translation.
Newmark works with three propositions:
* the more important the language of a text,
the more closely it should be translated;
* the less important the language of a text the
less closely it needs to be translated;
* the better written a text, the more closely it
should be translated, whatever its degree of
importance
Peter Newmark’s contribution to theory of translation.
In
Newmark’s opinion, the translator has to
establish priorities in selecting which varieties of
meaning to transfer in the first place.
For that he has to use his creativity, particularly
when he is forced to distort the target language,
introducing new elements of another culture.
That is the case when translating cultural
metaphors, transcultural words, concept words.
Peter Newmark’s contribution to theory of translation.
Newmark criticises the present-day controversies
concerning the conflict between free and literal
translation.
text to text equivalence
and not simply word to word!
Peter Newmark’s contribution to theory of translation.
Newmark considers two types of translation:
semantic and communicative, although he
states that the majority of texts require
communicative
rather
than
semantic
translation.
Communicative translation is strictly functional and
usually the work of a team.
Semantic translation is linguistic and encyclopaedic
and is generally the work of one translator.
Peter Newmark’s contribution to theory of translation.
For Newmark, the main concern of translation theory
is to determine appropriate translation methods for
the widest possible range of texts and to provide a
framework of principles for translating texts.
Translation theory also attempts to give some insight
into the relation between thought, meaning and
language and can show the student all that is or
may be involved in the translation process.
Peter Newmark’s contribution to theory of translation.
For Newmark translation is a
craft.
The translator acquires a
technique in which the
process to be followed
takes into account the
acts of comprehension,
interpretation,
formulation and
recreation.
Vladimir Nabokov’s translation activity.
Vladimir Nabokov
(1899–1977)
Vladimir Nabokov’s translation activity.
“I am an American writer, born in Russia and
educated in England where I studied French
literature, before spending fifteen years in
Germany”
Vladimir Nabokov, 1964
Vladimir Nabokov’s translation activity.
“None of my American friends have read my Russian
books and thus every appraisal on the strength of
my English ones is bound to be out of focus. My
private tragedy, which cannot, indeed should not,
be anybody’s concern, is that I had to abandon my
natural language, my natural idiom, my rich,
infinitely rich and docile Russian tongue, for a
second-rate brand of English.
(‘On a Book Entitled Lolita’, 1956)
Vladimir Nabokov’s translation activity.
In 1941 Nabokov published the ‘The Art of Translation’.
Nabokov writes about three grades of evil in the world
of verbal transmigration.
The first, and lesser one: obvious errors due to
ignorance
excusable.
or
misguided
knowledge.
This
is
Vladimir Nabokov’s translation activity.
From Nabokov’s ‘The Art of Translation’
The next step to Hell is taken by the translator who
intentionally skips words or passages that he does
not bother to understand or that might seem
obscure or obscene to vaguely imagined readers.
The third, and worst, degree of turpitude is reached
when a masterpiece is ... patted into such a shape,
vilely beautified in such a fashion as to conform to
the notions and prejudices of a given public.
Vladimir Nabokov’s translation activity.
From Nabokov’s ‘The Art of Translation’
Barring
downright
deceivers,
mild
imbeciles
and
impotent poets, there exist, roughly speaking, three
types of translators—and this has nothing to do
with my three categories of evil; or, rather, any of
the three types may err in a similar way.
Vladimir Nabokov’s translation activity.
From Nabokov’s ‘The Art of Translation’
These three are:
the scholar who is eager to make the world
appreciate the works of an obscure genius as
much as he does himself;
the well meaning hack;
and the professional writer.
Vladimir Nabokov’s translation activity.
From Nabokov’s ‘The Art of Translation’
The scholar will be, I hope, exact and pedantic: footnotes—
on the same page as the text and not tucked away at the
end of the volume — can never be too copious and
detailed. The laborious lady translating at the eleventh
hour the eleventh volume of somebody’s collected works
will be, I am afraid, less exact and less pedantic; but the
point is not that the scholar commits fewer blunders than
a drudge; the point is that as a rule both he and she are
hopelessly devoid of any semblance of creative genius.
Neither learning nor diligence can replace imagination
and style.
Vladimir Nabokov’s translation activity.
From Nabokov’s ‘The Art of Translation’
Now comes the authentic poet who has the two last assets
and who finds relaxation in translating a bit of Lermontov
or Verlaine between writing poems of his own. Either he
does not know the original language and calmly relies
upon the so-called ‘literal’ translation made for him by a
far less brilliant but a little more learned person, or else,
knowing the language, he lacks the scholar’s precision
and the professional translator’s experience.
Vladimir Nabokov’s translation activity.
From Nabokov’s ‘The Art of Translation’
The main drawback, however, in this case is the fact that the
greater his individual talent, the more apt he will be to
drown the foreign masterpiece under the sparkling
ripples of his own personal style. Instead of dressing up
like the real author, he dresses up the author as himself.
Vladimir Nabokov’s translation activity.
From Nabokov’s ‘The Art of Translation’
We can deduce now the requirements that a translator must
possess in order to be able to give an ideal version of a
foreign masterpiece. First of all he must have as much
talent, or at least the same kind of talent, as the author
he chooses [ . . . ]
Second, he must know thoroughly the two nations and the
two languages involved and be perfectly acquainted with
all details relating to his author’s manner and methods;
also, with the social background of words, their fashions,
history and period associations.
Vladimir Nabokov’s translation activity.
From Nabokov’s ‘The Art of Translation’
This leads to the third point: while having genius and
knowledge he must possess the gift of mimicry and be
able to act, as it were, the real author’s part …
Mary Snell-Hornby’s integrated approach to translation
studies
Mary Snell-Hornby, translation theorist, professor
of translation studies at the University of
Vienna
author of “Translation und Text” (1996);
and co-author of “Translation
Interdiscipline” (1994).
Studies:
An
Mary Snell-Hornby’s integrated approach to translation
studies
Her approach to translation studies is broadbased
and interdisciplinary.
Snell-Hornby is among those who wish to develop
the discipline holistically, avoiding the kind of
specialization which would separate different
genres of translation; she treats literary
translation as inherently and culturally linked to
‘practical’ translation.
Mary Snell-Hornby’s integrated approach to translation
studies
The key ideas of her approach:
• Translation studies should not be considered a
mere offshoot of another discipline or subdiscipline (whether Applied Linguistics or
Comparative Literature): both the translator
and the translation theorist are rather
concerned with a world between disciplines,
languages and cultures.
Mary Snell-Hornby’s integrated approach to translation
studies
The key ideas of her approach:
• Whereas linguistics has gradually widened its
field of interest from the micro- to the macrolevel, translation studies, which is concerned
essentially with texts against their situational
and cultural background, should adopt the
reverse perspective: an analysis of parts
cannot provide an understanding of the whole,
which must be analyzed from ‘the top down’.
Mary Snell-Hornby’s integrated approach to translation
studies
The key ideas of her approach:
• While the classic approach to the study of
language and translation has been to isolate
phenomena (mainly words) and study them in
depth, translation studies is essentially
concerned with a web of relationships; the
importance of individual items is decided by
their relevance in the larger context of text,
situation and culture.
Lawrence Venuti and “translator’s invisibility”.
Lawrence Venuti (b. 1953) is a
professional translator (mostly from
Italian), translation theorist, and
educator, the author of
The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of
Translation (1995)
The Scandals of Translation: Towards an
Ethics of Difference (1998)
Lawrence Venuti and “translator’s invisibility”.
Providing an account of the history of translation from the
17th century to the present day, Venuti shows how
fluency prevailed over other translation strategies to
shape the canon of foreign literatures in English.
The author locates alternative translation theories and
practices which aim to communicate linguistic and
cultural differences instead of removing them.
Lawrence Venuti and “translator’s invisibility”.
Venuti supports a translator’s activism, which might
counter the effect of domestication, which he
characterizes as violation of source cultures.
Venuti writes: My goal is not an essentializing of the
foreign, but resistance against ethnocentrism and
racism, cultural narcissism and imperialism, in the
interests of democratic geopolitical relations.
Lawrence Venuti and “translator’s invisibility”.
Hence, my project is the elaboration of the theoretical,
critical, and textual means by which translation can be
studied and practised as a focus of difference, instead
of the homogeneity that widely characterizes it today.
Once the violence of translation is recognized, the
choices facing the writers and readers of translated
texts become clear—however difficult they are to
make.
Translation studies in the 20th-century Russia.
Russian translation theories of the 20th century are
largely based on the assumption that translation is a
phenomenon that can be studied and described in an
objective and consistent way, using various methods
of observation and analysis.
The
translator’s
decision-making
process
may
seem
subjective and intuitive, but it is ultimately governed
by certain linguistic and cognitive patterns in the
source and target languages.
Translation studies in the 20th-century Russia.
Translation theory is expected to be descriptive in the
first place and its main task is to study observable
facts, to discover the regular features of the
translation process common to most individual acts of
translation.
The main method of research used by Russian translation
theorists is the comparative analysis of the source and
target texts, as well as various experimental studies of
the actual act of translation.
Translation studies in the 20th-century Russia.
Theoretical investigations of translation in Russia
are largely carried out within a linguistic
framework. Most researches regard the
linguistic theory of translation as an important
branch of the linguistic sciences.
Translation studies in the 20th-century Russia.
In 1950 Yakov Retsker published an article in
which he argues that a translator’s
choices are often not free but determined
by certain correlations between units of
the source and target languages.
Many units in the source language have more
or less regular correspondences in the
target language.
Retsker
proposed
three
types
of
correspondences: equivalents, analogs
and adequate changes.
Translation studies in the 20th-century Russia.
Of particular importance was establishing the
method of correlating the original with the
translation to find out linguistic regularities of
the translation process.
Translation studies in the 20th-century Russia.
Correlating categories of logic with translation,
Retsker singled out seven types of lexical
transformations which help to understand the
meaning of a word in the context of a source
text and find its correspondence in the target
language.
Translation studies in the 20th-century Russia.
Lexical transformations
differentiation
concretization
generalization
semantic development
antonymic translation
An
complex transformation
compensation
Translation studies in the 20th-century Russia.
In 1953 Andrey Fyodorov in his book “Introduction to
translation theory” («Введение в теорию перевода»)
emphasized the necessity and possibility of creating a
linguistic theory of translation.
Fyodorov differentiated between the general theory of
translation, whose aim is to develop recommendations
for any pairs of languages and a special theory of
translation describing correspondences between two
particular languages.
Translation studies in the 20th-century Russia.
He also pointed out the necessity to study
peculiarities of translating texts of various
genres
and
functional
styles
and
substantiated
the
classification
of
correspondences into lexical, grammatical
and stylistic.
Translation studies in the 20th-century Russia.
Vilen Komissarov’s major publications
on translation theory include
* A Word on Translation (1973)
* Linguistics of Translation (1980)
* Theory of Translation (1990)
* Theoretical Basic of Methods of
Translator Training (1997)
* General Theory of Translation
(1999).
Translation studies in the 20th-century Russia.
Komissarov paid special attention to the
concept of equivalence in translation.
Besides discussing various ways of describing
the translation process and translation
models, he introduced the notions of
pragmatic ultra-goal or top priority
(надзавдання)
of
translation
and
translation norm.
Translation studies in the 20th-century Russia.
Aleksandr Shveitser considered a wide
range of translation theory issues in
his book “Translation and Linguistics”
(«Перевод и лингвистика»).
Shveitser singles out the following types
of transformations in the process of
translation:
grammatical transformations,
lexical-semantic paraphrase and
situational transformations.
Translation studies in the 20th-century Russia.
Leonid Barkhudarov researched problems
connected with rendering different types of
meaning of language units:
referential,
pragmatic,
intralinguistic
and grammatical.
In his works we find a detailed description of
various translation transformations.