UNIVERSITY OF CRAIOVA
FACULTY OF LETTERS
THE DEPARTMENT OF BRITSH AND AMERICAN STUDIES
THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF TRANSLATION
Optional Course - COB1
Target population: 3rd year students,
Specialization: Romanian (major)-English (minor), Distance Learning
Course designer: Senior Lecturer TITELA VÎLCEANU, Ph.D.
Course description
The course focuses on current approaches and methods in the complex field of
translation considered partly science, partly skill, and partly art. Apart from the bulk of
theory, students are acquainted with practical aspects of bilingual translation in different
fields and registers (literary, business, legal, medical, scientific English) in order to
understand that translation is not solely an intuitive work, that there are both universally
and cross-culturally ratified problems.
Course objectives
 to make students aware of the status of translation and of translator in the
contemporary world and in the universal frame of human communication;
 to make students understand that translation is an interdisciplinary science;
 to give students practice in reflective translating;
 to expose students to a variety of text-types at different levels of difficulty
Contents
1. Perspectives on translation and on the translator
 The status of translation – diachrony and synchrony
 The status of the translator as communicator. The translator’s competence
 Monolingual vs. bilingual communication
 A functional theory of translation
 Translation vs. translating
2. Language functions and text-types
 Theories of language
 The expressive function of language. Expressive texts
 The informative function of language. Informative texts
 The vocative function of language. Vocative texts
 The aesthetic function of language and related texts
 The phatic function of language. Phaticisms
 The metalinguistic function
3. Translation methods
 Formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence
 Translator’s divided loyalties
 The reader-oriented perspective and text typology
 The equivalent effect
4. The unit of translation: translation procedures
 Literal translation: word-for-word translation vs. one-to-one translation
 Peculiarities of:
- transference
- naturalisation
- cultural equivalent
- functional equivalent
- descriptive equivalent
- bilingual synonymy
- through translation
- shift
- modulation
- recognized translation
- translation label
- compensation
- componential analysis
- reduction and expansion
- paraphrase
- equivalence
- adaptation
Bibliography
1. Bell, R.T. (1991). Translation and Translating. London: Longman
2. Cottom, D. (1998). Text and Culture. The politics of Interpretation. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota
3. Freeborn, D. 1996. Style.Text Analysis and Linguistic Criticism, London:
Macmillan
4. Hatim, B., Mason, I. (1997). The Translator as Communicator. London:
Routledge,
5. Jaworski, A., Coupland, N. (1999). The Discourse Reader, London & New York:
Routledge
6. Leung, C., 2005, “Convivial Communication : Recontextualizing Communicative
Competence” in International Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 15, No.
2, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 119 – 144
7. Munday, J., 2001, Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications,
London: Routledge
8. Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. Prentice Hall International (UK)
Ltd.
9. Snell-Hornby, M. (1995). Translation Studies. An Integrated Approach,
Amsterdam: Benjamins
10. Venuti, L. (1992). Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology,
London: Routledge
11. Vîlceanu, T. (2003). Translation. The Land of the Bilingual, Craiova:
Universitaria
Evaluation: 70% formal examination, 30% home task assignment
Perspectives on translation and on the translator
 The status of translation – diachrony and synchrony
G. Steiner (1975) in his landmark book “After Babel: aspects of language and
translation” divides the theory of translation into four main periods:
 the first period extends from the Roman times up to the publication of Tytler’s
“Essay on the Principles of Translation” (1791); the period is characterized by immediate
empirical focus;
 the second period has as a starting point the year 1791 and ends in 1946 with
Larbaud’s “Sous l’invocation de St. Jerome”; theory of translation and hermeneutics go
hand in hand and at the same time the vocabulary and the terminology of translation as
science are developed on a par with the methodology of translation;
 the third period is much shorter but not downgraded in signification. It
extends over three decades (1940s – 1960s) when theory of translation is mostly
influenced by machine translation, by the introduction of structural linguistics and of the
theory of communication.
 the last division is from 1960s onwards and it could be seen as a reversion to
hermeneutics. Theory of translation is now a hybrid, an interdisciplinary approach in the
wide frame of antropology, sociology, rhetoric, poetics, grammar, semantics and
pragmatics.
The first traces of translation go back around the year 3000 BC in the Egyptian Old
Kingdom. The next proof is to be found much later in 300 BC in the Roman translations
from the Greek. Cicero and Horace discuss translation in conjunction with the two
functions of the poet: the poet fulfilled the universal human duty of acquiring and
disseminating wisdom and he was also responsible for the art of making and shaping a
poem. Cicero strongly believed that the mind dominates the body in the same way the
king rules over his subjects or the father controls his children (what he calls the Law of
Reason). Therefore, he favours word for word, sense for sense translation while paying
equal attention to the aesthetic criteria of the target language product which should enrich
the native language of the readership. Horace takes a stand against overcautious imitation
or mimesis. He thinks that the translator should be in the habit of borrowing and coining
words, but within limits. Moderation becomes a key word as the translator bears
responsibility to the target language readers.
During the 14th and 16th centuries, the main preoccupation lies in the translation of the
Bible. The translators’ role was to spread the word of God and two criteria were to be
met: aesthetic and evangelistic. St. Jerome wrote about stylistic licence and heretical
interpretations of the Bible in the attempt to clarify intricate meaning and allegory or
parable in the religious text. Between 1380-1384, Wycliffite performs the first translation
of the complete Bible in the very spirit of the theory of dominion by grace: man was
immediately responsible to God and God’s law. In order that the crucial text may be
accessible, the translation is done in the vernacular language. The second Wycliffite
Bible is produced between 1395-1396. Chapter 15 contains an elaboration of the stages of
the translation process: translation presupposes a collaborative effort of collecting old
Bibles and glosses; a comparison of these is necessary; translation cannot be done
without counselling with “old grammarians and old divines”; the translation should focus
on sentence meaning.
Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament in 1525 is intended as a clear version for the
layman. Hence, we can state that the aims of the 16th century Bible translators were to
spot errors (in some other translations of the sacred text), to produce an accessible and
aesthetic vernacular style and to clarify points of dogma.
In the medieval education system, translation was a writing exercise and a means of
improving oratorical style (in the very tradition established by Quintilian in the 1st
century AD): paraphrasing, embellishment, and abridgement to achieve both efficiency
and effectiveness. Translation in the Middle Ages can be considered vertical as
transposing the text from a source language of prestige (Latin) into the vernacular target
language while rendering word for word meaning (interlinear gloss). It can also be seen
as horizontal: the source and target languages have similar values (Norman French and
English, for instance) and it becomes a matter of imitatio or borrowing.
Bacon and Dante are concerned with moral and aesthetic criteria, with loss and coinage
in translation. In their opinion, translation resembles stylistics. Dante is further worried
by the accessibility of the translated text and by its accuracy. Chaucer is the first to
consider translation a skill and to acknowledge that there are different modes of reading
and interpreting a source language text.
Although decreasing in quantity and importance, the translation of classical authors was
not neglected totally. Chapman in his "Epistle to the Reader”, which accompanied his
translation of the Iliad, manifests the same range of concerns: avoid word for word
renderings; reach the spirit of the original; investigate versions and glosses.
The Renaissance is another turning point in the history of the theory of translation. The
Elizabethan translators believed in the affirmation of the individual and this is obvious in
the replacement of the indirect discourse by the direct one. Wyatt, Surrey translated
mostly poems; they saw translation as an adaptation, faithful to the meaning of the poem
but also complying with the expectations of the target language readers. The poem was
viewed as an artifact of a particular cultural system and the translation should fulfil a
similar function in the target language; thus translation was assessed as a primary
intellectual activity.
The 17th century (Augustan England) is a period of radical changes in the theory of
literature and translation. Descartes has already imposed his inductive reasoning and
literary critics state rules of aesthetic production (imitation of ancient masters).
Sir John Denham speaks of the formal aspect of Art, of the spirit nature of the work and
he declares himself against the literal translation of poetry. The translator and author have
equal status, but they operate in different social (cultural) and temporal contexts. The
translator’s mastery of the two languages is desirable to understand the spirit of the
author and to conform to the canons of his age. Pope advises the translator to give a close
reading to the original text for considerations of style and manner and to keep alive the
”fire” of the poem.
In the 18th century authors are particularly sensitive to the question of overfaithfulness vs.
looseness in translation, and of the moral duty to the contemporary reader. The major
achievements are the restructurings of Shakespeare’s texts and the reworkings of
Racine’s plays. Dr. Johnson discusses the additions that translators can make to texts as
every individual has the right to be addressed in his own terms. The metaphor of the
translator as painter / imitator is to be decoded as the moral duty the translator has toward
the subject and the receiver. The translator will be seen as a painter who is denied the
possibility of using the same colours. We have already mentioned that Tytler’s work
(1791) is a hallmark in the history of the theory of translation, being considered the first
systematic study in English. The principles he announces are best summed up in the
following words: complete transcript of the idea of the original work (total surrender of
the translator); similar style and manner of the source language and target language text;
original composition bearing the stamp of the translator as text creator.
The 18th century ‘s ideology is mainly a reaction against rationalism and formal harmony,
while allowing the vitalist function of imagination and the freedom of the creative force.
Briefly, two tendencies were recorded: translation as a category of thought; translation as
the genius work. The problem of meaning is at the core of both trends: if poetry is a
separate entity from language, then the translator should be able to read between the
lines, to reproduce the text behind the text. Shelley granted translation a lower status: a
kind of filling a gap between inspirations, for the sake of the literary graces.
The 19th century (The Victorians) is characterized by the need to convey remoteness in
time and space and by the concept of untranslatability (which was quite a dogma at the
time). Carlyle’s translations from German show an immense respect for the original,
based on the writer’s sureness of its worth. We assist at the emergence of an élitist
conception of translation, which is addressed to the cultivated reader whilst the average
reader is made no concessions as far as his expectations and tastes are concerned. The
translation has an archaic flavour, the contemporary life has no room into the space of
translation. M. Arnold in his considerations “On Translating Homer” advises the reader
to put trust into the scholars and thus translation is devaluated as a mere instrument to
bring the target language reader into the source language text. Longfellow went to the
extreme and considered the translator a technician and E. Fitzgerald said that “It is better
to have a live sparrow than a stuffed eagle”, which is to be understood as version of the
source language text into the target language text as a living entity. This patronizing
attitude is equivalent to Nida’s “spirit of exclusivism”: the translator is a skilful merchant
offering exotic wares to the discerning few.
The emergence of the science of the theory of translation is indeed the merit of the 20th
century (up to this date, we can speak of commentaries arising from the practice of
translating) when advancements and refinements of the theory are the topical issue.
The 20th century is marked, in its first half, by literalness, archaizing, the target language
second rate merit and by an élite minority addressed by the translator. Translation theory
stems from comparative linguistics; it is mainly an aspect of semantics, but it cannot be
strictly separated from sociolinguistics and.semiotics. C. S. Peirce laid the foundations of
semiotics in 1934 when he stated that no sign has a self- contained meaning, that it is a
function of the user / interpretant (the idea echoed in the field of translation, too).
Stylistics (Jakobson, 1960, 1966; Spitzer, 1948), in its turn at the crossroads between
linguistics and literary criticism, intersects the theory of translation into a joint venture.
Ordinary language philosophers (Austin, 1962) take into consideration grammatical and
lexical aspects of translation, stating that all sentences depend on a presupposition or
truth value to be identified. Austin’s declarative and performative sentences coincide in
fact with the distinction between standardized and non-standardized language in
translation. Wittgenstein (1958) laid emphasis on the contextual meaning(s) of words
while Grice (1975) associated intention to meaning.
In its attempt to become a science, theory of translation equips itself with a set of
objectives, among which one comes topmost: to determine appropriate methods for the
widest possible range of texts or text categories. Translation theory should also provide
the framework of principles, rules, hints for translating texts and criticizing translations (a
background for problem solving). The practical problems encountered are: the intention
of the text; the intention of the translator; the readership and setting of the text; the
quality of the writing and the authority of the text.
Translation becomes a question of semantic universals or tertium comparationis, a
question of splitting words and word series into components to be transferred according
to the target language context.
 The Translator as Communicator
In the new millennium, the status of translation is still questioned: art, craft or science?
Before making a choice, we must bear in mind that in the closing decade of the 20th
century the vast bulk of translations were not literary texts, but economic, technical,
medical, legal ones and that the vast majority of translators are professionals engaged in
making a living rather than whiling away the time.
Translation as a profession has been acknowledged since the foundation of FIT
(International Federation of Translators) in 1953, the promulgation of the Translator’s
Charter at Dubrovnik in 1963 (which laid down the translator’s code of conduct with
regard to confidentiality and open negotiation of fees) and the UNESCO
Recommendations of 1976 in Nairobi. Nowadays, staff translators are seen performing
various roles: in UNO, UNESCO, NATO and other international organizations
translating reports, journals, brochures and facilitating communication (on the basis of
common humanity) between representatives of member countries. Their job also includes
the translation of classified information, correspondence, publicity, faxes, contracts,
training films, etc. As freelancers, they may be translating original papers for academic
journals to help researchers with the updating of information, they may be dubbing or
sub-titling films or translating all sorts of materials for translation companies.
The translator’s task is to continually search and re-search, to deconstruct and reconstruct
the text as his/her world is one of dichotomies pertaining to the traditional areas of
activity of translators (technical, literary, religious translator, etc), to modes of translating
(written, oral) and to the translator’s priorities or focus (literal vs. free, form vs. content,
formal vs. dynamic equivalence, semantic vs. communicative translating, translator’s
visibility vs. invisibility, domesticating vs. foreignizing translation).
In a large sense, the translator is identified with any communicator (whether listeners or
readers, monolinguals or bilinguals) as they receive signals containing messages encoded.
The translator is a” bilingual mediating agent between monolingual communication
participants in two different language communities.”(House, 1977) i.e. the translator
decodes messages transmitted in one language and re-encodes them in another.
To better understand this principle, it is useful if not necessary to examine the following
diagram:
Monolingual communication:
code
sender
channel
signal
(message)
channel
receiver
content
The sender selects the message and the code, encodes the message, selects the channel of
communication and transmits the signal containing the message. The receiver receives
the signal containing the message, recognizes the code, decodes the signal and finally
retrieves and comprehends the message.
The translator is both a receiver and a producer, a special category of communicator
whose behaviour (act of communication) is conditioned by the previous one and whose
reception of that previous act is intensive. Unlike other receivers who have a choice
whether to pay more or less attention to their listening or reading, the translator interacts
closely with the source language text, whether for immediate purpose (simultaneous
interpreter) or in a more reflective way (literary translator).
In a normative (prescriptive) approach, a good translation is:
“that in which the merit of the original work is so completely transfused into another language, as to be
distinctly apprehended, and as strongly felt, by a native of the country to which that language belongs, as it
is by those who speak the language of the original work.” (Tytler, 1791).
Translation is an abstract concept incorporating both the process/the activity and the
product/the translated text. From now on we shall refer to the activity with the term of
translating.
Of course, any theoretical framework should deal with translation problems and should
formulate a set of strategies for approaching this i.e. it should provide a model whose
cohesive character is explained by the collection of data. There are no cast-iron rules.
Everything is more or less.
Newmark (1988) identifies four levels present in various degrees consciously in the mind
when translating:
1. the SLT level to which we continually go back to;
2. the referential level – objects, real or imaginary, which we visualize
progressively in the comprehension and reproduction process;
3. the cohesive level which is more general, concerned with grammar and
presuppositions of the SLT;
4. the level of naturalness, of common language appropriate to the writer/speaker
under the circumstances.
The fourth level binds translation theory to translating theory and translating theory to
practice.
The translation practice brings about specifications of the translator competence i.e.
knowledge and skills.
“The professional (technical) translator has access to five distinct kinds of knowledge: TL knowledge,
text-type knowledge, SL knowledge, subject area (real world) knowledge and contrastive knowledge.”
(Johnson and Whitelock: 1987, p.137)
There is overlap between these five kinds which will be discussed later on. What proves
to be more important is adequacy in translation in terms of the specifications of the task
and the users’ needs.
Bearing in mind Chomsky’s “ideal speaker – hearer” we can postulate the existence of
the ideal bilingual reader – writer whose communicative competence consists in a perfect
knowledge of both languages. At the same time, this ideal bilingual reader – writer is
unaffected by theoretically irrelevant conditions such as memory limitations, distractions,
shifts of attention or interest, errors – random or characteristic, in applying his knowledge
in actual performance.
The translator’s communicative competence is a multi-component. Grammar competence
can be identified with the knowledge and skills to understand and express the literal
meaning of utterances. Sociolinguistic competence should be seen as a knowledge of and
ability to produce and understand utterances appropriately in context. Discourse
competence is the ability to combine form and meaning to achieve unified spoken or
written text in different genres. Special attention will be paid to the sociolinguistics
variables of power and distance which transcend particular fields and modes of
translating. Strategic competence is the same as the mastery of communications strategies
which may be used to improve communications or to compensate for breakdowns.
Cumulatively, the translator should possess sensitivity to language, linguistic competence
in both languages and communicative competence in both cultures in order to create
(write neatly, plainly and nicely in a variety of registers), comprehend and use contextfree texts as the means of participation in context – sensitive discourse (he should possess
“the ability to research often temporarily the topic of the texts being translated, and to
master one specialism” – Newmark: 1991, p.49)
Language Functions and the Text Continuum
The two functional theories of language to be discussed are Bühler’s (1934) and
Jakobson’s (1960), the latter’s being the most frequently applied to translating.
According to Bühler, language manifests three main functions: the expressive
(Ausdruck), the informative (he calls it “representation”, Darstellung) and the vocative
(Appell) which in fact coincide with the main purposes of using language. Jakobson
strongly suggests that a theory of language is based on a theory of translation. He adapts
Bühler’s theory and proposes a six function model:
code
[metalinguistic function]
addresser
[emotive function]
code
[phatic function]
message
[poetic function]
addressee
[conative function]
context
[referential function]
The emotive (expressive) function draws attention upon the mind of the originator of the
utterance who expresses his/her feelings irrespective of any response .The focus is on the
sender, the meaning is subjective, personal, connotative.
E.g.
I am tired.
Within this linguistic approach, it must be understood that text typology has no clear-cut
demarcation lines. Text- types as all embracing categories are commonly defined as
classes of texts with typical patterns of characteristics or classes of texts expected to have
certain traits for certain overall rhetorical purposes.
The text producer feeds his / her own beliefs or goals into the model of the current
communication situation, thus also performing as a mediator. Extensive mediation is
manifest into text-types. The identification of a text- type can be done through either
inductive reasoning (the text as an entity is compared to text theory specifications) or
deductive reasoning (text theory is applied to empirical samples).
Any categorization or classification is idealized since all texts are hybrids,
multifunctional, recognizing dominance of certain peculiar features, showing some
emphasis or thrust. We are dealing with a text continuum rather than with borderline
instances. It is all about cognitive thresholds or the extent to which text receivers are
prone to recognize objects and believe statements. As readers and translators (a translator
is said to be a privileged reader as he / she reads in order to produce, to do something
with the text not merely to receive it, in order to make a decision that will affect ordinary
readers) we should be able to recognize the dominant contextual focus:
“Some traditionally established text-types could be defined along FUNCTIONAL lines, i.e. according to
the contributions of texts to human interaction. we would at least be able to identify some DOMINANCES,
though without obtaining a strict categorization for every conceivable example…In many texts, we would
find a mixture of the descriptive, narrative, and argumentative function.”
(Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981: p.184)
Basically, text typology includes descriptive, narrative and argumentative texts for whose
identification and processing we are biologically endowed (we have internalised patterns
of recognition of text-type and text organization).
With respect to the degree of mediation present in the text, descriptive and narrative
texts, can be said to give a reasonably unmediated account of the situation (we are in fact
dealing with situation monitoring) whilst in the last type the situation is guided according
to the text producer’s goal (situation management). On the other hand, mediation is
minimal within the same culture (Western, for instance) and maximal in the case of
remote cultures (Western and Muslim).
With this specification in mind, we can proceed now to the following stage of classifying
texts on account of language functions and further according to rhetorical purposes.
Readability (the extent to which a text is suitable for reception among its receivers) is not
to be identified with expenditure of the least effort, but rather with a balancing of the
required effort and the resulting insights.
Newmark (1980) thinks of the following categories as expressive text-types:
1. Serious imaginative literature further divided into lyrical poetry, short stories, novels,
plays. Of course, some assistance is needed in the case of plays as far as cross-cultural
communication is concerned because plays are addressed to a large audience (we shall
make future reference to the concept of audience design).
2. Authoritative statements derive their authority from the high status or reliability and
linguistic competence of their originators. Such texts bear the stamp of their authors,
although they are mainly denotative, not connotative.
E.g.
political speeches, documents, statutes and legal documents, academic
works of acknowledged authorities
Autobiographies, essays, personal correspondence when personal effusions are more
often than not mingled throughout the pages.
3.
Undoubtedly, the status of the author is a “sacred” one. It proves essential for the
translator to be able to distinguish the personal interferences in the texts: unusual
collocations, original metaphors, coined words, displaced syntax, neologisms- all that
characterizes the idiolect or personal dialect and that seems as natural as possible in a
translation.
The informative (referential) function focuses on the external situation, on the reality
outside language including reported ideas or theories i.e. the subject matter. It refers to
entities, states, events, relations which constitute the real world. Content is now the
priority.
E.g. Here is the 14a.
Typical informative texts are textbooks, technical reports, articles in newspapers or
periodicals, scientific papers, minutes, etc. Informative texts represent the vast majority
of a professional translator’s work in international organizations, private companies, and
translation agencies. Therefore, it is important to highlight the salient features of this kind
of texts so often dealt with.
Scientific texts “explore, extend, clarify society’s knowledge store of a special domain of
facts by presenting and examining evidence drawn from observation and documentation”
(Beaugrande and Dressler: 1981, p.186). Their evaluation is based on upgrading in the
sense that more specialized knowledge is provided for everyday occurrences.
Academic papers are written in a technical style characterised in English by an extensive
use of the passive forms, present and perfect tenses, latinised vocabulary, jargon, and
absence of metaphors.
Other technical textbooks concentrate on the use of the first person plural, present tense,
dynamic verbs, active voice,basic conceptual metaphors. Popular science or art books
(coffee-table books, pulp fiction) cannot deviate from simple grammatical structures,
stock metaphors, simple vocabulary and they are always rich in illustrations to
accommodate definitions.
The vocative function focuses on the readership/addressee/audience.
E.g. Alex! Come here a minute!
A synonym for vocative would be “calling upon” i.e. calling upon the addressee to act,
think or feel, to respond in the way intended by the text. Its appeal is meant to be very
direct- think of the vocative case in some inflected languages. This function is also
termed conative (denoting effort) and rhetorically it could be considered a strategy of
manipulation, of getting active agreement.
Typical vocative texts are instructions, publicity, propaganda, persuasive writing
(requests, cases, theses) and possibly popular fiction, whose purpose is to sell the book
and to entertain the readers.
The first factor in a vocative text is the relationship between the writer and the readership.
This relationship-of power or equality, command, request, persuasion- is identified
through grammatical realizations:
E.g.
forms of address-T (you, the corresponding French and Romanian tu),
and V (you; in French: vous, in Romanian: dumneavoastră);
use of the infinitive, imperative, subjunctive, indicative, impersonal forms,
of the passive voice;
first and/or family name;
titles;
hypocoristic names.
The second factor is that these texts must be written in an immediately comprehensible
language. Thus, the linguistic or the cultural level of the SL text has to be reviewed
before it is given a pragmatic impact.
The poetic/aesthetic function is designed to please the senses, firstly through its actual or
imagined sound, and secondly through its metaphors. The rhythm, balance, and contrasts
of sentences, clauses and words play their part. The sound effects consist of
onomatopoeia, alliteration, assonance, rhyme, metre, intonation, stress. They are
encountered in most types of texts: poetry, nonsense, children’s verse/nursery rhymes,
some types of publicity (jingles, TV commercials). In translating, there can be often
conflict between the expressive and the aesthetic function i.e. between factual truth and
beauty. Compromise or compensation is often needed.
The phatic function of language is used for maintaining contact with the addressee rather
than for imparting new information, for keeping social relations in good repair. It focuses
on the channel, on the fact that participants are in contact. In spoken English, apart from
tone of voice, it usually occurs in standard phrases or phaticisms.
Eg.
How are you?
You know.
Are you well?
See you tomorrow.
Lovely to see you.
What an awful day!
Isn’t it hot today?
Some phaticisms are universal, others cultural and they should be rendered by standard
equivalents, not literal translations.
In written English, phaticisms attempt to win the confidence and the credulity of the
reader.
E.g. of course, naturally, undoubtedly, it is interesting, it is important to note
that
They often flatter the reader:
E.g. It is well-known that…
The problem which arises is whether to delete or overtranslate them (increase detail), or
to tone down phaticisms:
E.g. Illustrissimo Signore Rossi: Mr. Rossi
The metalinguistic / metalingual function of language indicates a language ability to
explain, name, and criticise its own features. It focuses on the code, on the language
being used to talk about language. Dictionaries, grammar books are typically displaying
this function. The translation becomes difficult when the items to be rendered from one
language to another are language-specific.
E.g. supine, ablative, illative, vocative
The options range from detailed explanations, examples to a culturally neutral third term.
On the other hand, SL expressions signaling metalingual words
E.g. strictly speaking, in the true sense of the word, so called, so to speak, as
another generation put it
have to be treated cautiously as there may be no equivalence of meaning if translated
one-to-one.
Translation Methods
Translating is not a neutral activity. Phrases such as traduttore-traditore, les belles
infidèles abound in literature. Undoubtedly, the central problem of translating can be
expressed in a peremptory tone: whether to translate literally or freely. The question of
the prototypical essence of translation has no solid foundation. The arguments in favour
or against one alternative or the other have been going on since at least the beginning of
the first century BC. Up to the beginning of the nineteenth century, many writers
favoured free translation: the spirit not the letter, the sense not the words, the message
rather than the form, the matter not the manner. Writers wanted the truth to be
understood. At the turn of the nineteenth century, anthropology had a great impact on
linguistics. Cultural anthropology suggested that linguistic barriers were insuperable and
that language was entirely the product of culture. The focus / choice of the translator
between the two poles was to be carefully thought according to the translators’
orientation towards the social or the individual. No matter the name it bears, the choice is
an ideological one: free or literal (literalists, Valéry, Croce), dynamic equivalence or
formal equivalence (Nida,1964), communicative or semantic translation (Newmark,
1981), domesticating or foreignizing translation (Venuti, 1995), minimal mediation vs.
maximal mediation (Nabokov, 1964). Venuti’s point of view deserves some further
attention as he speaks of the English cultural hegemony.
In domesticating texts, the translator adopts a strategy through which the TL, not the SL
is culturally dominant. Culture-specific terms are neutralised and re-expressed in terms of
what is familiar to the dominant culture. If the translation is done from a culturally
dominant SL to a minority-status TL, domestication protects SL values.
Communicative translation attempts to convey the most precise contextual meaning of
the original. Both content and language are readily acceptable and comprehensible.
Of all these methods, only semantic and communicative translations fulfil the two major
aims of translation: accuracy and economy. Similarities between the two methods are also
to be noticed: both use stock and dead metaphors, normal collocations, technical terms,
colloquialisms, slang, phaticisms, ordinary language. The expressive components
(unusual collocations and syntax, striking metaphors, neologisms) are rendered very
closely even literally in expressive texts while in vocative and informative texts they are
normalised or toned down (except for advertisements).
Scholars, notably House (1977), speak of these two possibilities of choice while attaching
them different labels:
- semantic translation: art, cognitive translation, overt (culture-linked)
translation, overtranslation;
- communicative translation: craft, functional or pragmatic translation, covert
(culture-free) translation, undertranslation.
A semantic translation is likely to be more economical than a communicative translation.
As a rule, a semantic translation is written at the author’s linguistic level, a
communicative translation at the readership’s. It is also worth mentioning that a semantic
translation is most suitable for expressive texts (more specifically for descriptive texts,
definitions, explanations), a communicative translation for informative and vocative texts
(standardized or formulaic language deserving special attention).
Cultural components are transferred intact in expressive translation, transferred and
explained with culturally neutral terms in informative translation, replaced by cultural
equivalents in vocative translation. A semantic translation remains within the boundaries
of the source language culture, assisting the reader only with connotations. A
communicative translation displays a generous transfer of foreign elements with an
emphasis on force (intended meaning) rather than on message.
The conclusion to be drawn from here is that semantic translation is personal, individual,
searching for nuances of meaning; it tends to over-translate, yet it aims at concision. On
the other hand, communicative translation is social, it concentrates on the message (the
referential basis or the truth of information is secured), it tends to under-translate, to be
simple and clear, yet it sounds always natural and resourceful (semantic translation may
sound awkward and quite unnatural to the target language reader as the language used is
often figurative). A semantic translation has to interpret, therefore it does not equal the
original. The problem of loss of meaning frequently arises in this case. A communicative
translation has to explain, it is more idiomatic and it is often said to be better than the
original. A semantic translation recognizes the SLT author’s defined authority,
preserving local flavour intact. The tuning with the SL author in semantic translation is
marvelously rendered in the following words:
“The translator invades, extracts and brings home.”
(g. Steiner, 1975: p. 298)
Chomsky denied that language is primarily communicative and believed only in the
strict linguistic meaning without resorting to cultural adaptations. A communicative
translation is a recast in modern culture, shedding new light on universal themes. Nida
(1978), doing some pioneering work, clearly states that translating is communicating.
Nevertheless, the translator’s freedom seems to be limited in both, as there is constant
conflict of interests or loyalties. Although our discussion constantly focuses on the
translator and not on the interpreter, it is worth remembering that the interpreter’s
loyalties are divided in diplomacy and there is a role conflict for the court interpreter
(seating nearer the defence or nearer the prosecution can affect the trust in his
impartiality).
Translation studies recommend that the overriding purpose of any translation should be
the equivalent effect, i.e. to produce the same effect (or one as close as possible) on the
readership of the translation as on the readership of the original. This principle is also
termed equivalent response or in Nida’s words dynamic equivalence. Dynamic
equivalence can be equated with the reader’s shadowy presence in the mind of the
translator, and contrasted to formal equivalence, i.e. equivalence of both form and content
between the two texts. Newmark (1981) sees the equivalent effect as the desirable result
rather than the aim of the translation. He argues that this result is unlikely in two cases:
 if the purpose of the SL text is to affect and the purpose of the TL text is to inform;
 if there is a clear cultural gap between SL text and TL text (in fact, translation merely
fills a gap between two cultures if, felicitously, there is no insuperable cultural clash.
The cultural gap is bridged more easily in a communicative translation as it conforms
with the universalist position advocating common thoughts and feelings. Semantic
translation follows the relativist position – thoughts and feelings are predetermined by the
languages and cultures in which people are born. Consequently, word or word-group is
the minimal unit of translation in the former case, the latter showing preference for the
sentence.
Dealing with text-types, we may say that in the case of communicative translation of
vocative texts, the effect is essential, not only desirable. In informative texts, the effect is
desirable only in respect of their insignificant emotional impact. The vocative thread in
these texts has nevertheless to be rendered with an equivalent purpose aim.
In semantic translation, the first problem arises with serious imaginative literature where
individual readers are the ones involved rather than a readership. Not to mention, that the
translator is essentially trying to render the impact of the SL text on himself, his empathy
with the author of the original. The reaction is individual rather than universal.
The more cultural (the more local, the more remote in time and space) a text, the less is
the equivalent effect unless the reader is imaginative, sensitive and steeped in the SL
culture. Cultural concessions are advised where the items are not important for local
colour and where they acquire no symbolic meaning.
Communicative translation is more likely to create equivalent effect than semantic
translation. A remote text will find an inevitably simplified, a version in translation.
Equivalent effect can be considered an intuitive principle, a skill rather than an art. It is
applicable to any type of text, only the degree of its importance varies from text to text.
Translation Procedures
The structural view of language as consisting of elements that could be defined both
syntagmatically (showing affinities) and paradigmatically (showing substitutability
within the system) has affected agreement on the unit of translation. Admittedly, scholars
speak of sentence and sentence lower-level components (phrases, words) as the unit of
translation when applying translation procedures and of whole texts pertaining to
translation methods.
The most influential study seems to be Vinay and Dalbernet (1958) to which several
authors make constant reference (Newmark, 1988). For our current purpose, only a
checklist of translation procedures is useful:
 literal translation, further subdivided into word-for-word and one-to-one
translation – the primary meaning of the word gains overall importance
alongside with the norms of the SL grammar;
 transference / emprunt / loan word / transcription / adoption / transfer posits
the problem of necessary and fancy borrowings from the SL into the TL;
 naturalisation is concerned with the compliance with the TL phonological,
morphological, and stylistic specifications;
 cultural equivalent – the recognition of similar cultural values within the two
cultural frameworks, a kind of universal currency to which different labels are
attached;
 functional equivalent – the focus is finding culture-free items;
 descriptive equivalent – whenever the concept is so culture-bound that it
allows only a description or a paraphrase ( an explanatory dictionary or
encyclopaedia may provide such information);
 bilingual / lexical synonymy – intended to capture specialization of meaning;
 through translation / calque / loan word – mostly concerned with the
translation of the names of international organizations;
 shift / transposition – this procedure comes into play at the syntactic level;
 modulation – implying a change of perspective (the two languages seem to
partition reality from a different point of view);
 recognized translation – institutional terms have been translated in order to
make better acquaintance with such cultural facts;
 translation label – submitted to refinements in the long run;
 compensation – omission of some irrelevant or inappropriate information at
the moment of decision may be supplied later in the translation and vice versa;
 componential analysis (CA) – the search for semantic primes or primitives
(semes) in the attempt to find the proper equivalent;
 reduction and expansion – the former if the information seems redundant or
recurrent, the latter if there is further need for clarification;
 paraphrase – the practice is encouraged only if the translator finds it
impossible to cater a single equivalent word / phrase;
 equivalence – the term is restricted to the idiomatic use of language;

adaptation – presumably, the most difficult problem for the translator to solve
as there is no correspondence of situation in the two languages (the referential
base is not secured).
Bibliography
12. Bell, R.T. (1991). Translation and Translating. London: Longman
13. Cottom, D. (1998). Text and Culture. The politics of Interpretation. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota
14. Freeborn, D. 1996. Style.Text Analysis and Linguistic Criticism, London:
Macmillan
15. Hatim, B., Mason, I. (1997). The Translator as Communicator. London:
Routledge,
16. Jaworski, A., Coupland, N. (1999). The Discourse Reader, London & New York:
Routledge
17. Leung, C., 2005, “Convivial Communication : Recontextualizing Communicative
Competence” in International Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 15, No.
2, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 119 – 144
18. Munday, J., 2001, Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications,
London: Routledge
19. Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. Prentice Hall International (UK)
Ltd.
20. Snell-Hornby, M. (1995). Translation Studies. An Integrated Approach,
Amsterdam: Benjamins
21. Venuti, L. (1992). Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology,
London: Routledge
22. Vîlceanu, T. (2003). Translation. The Land of the Bilingual, Craiova:
Universitaria