See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285494059

'WORD-FOR-WORD' OR 'SENSE-FOR-SENSE' TRANSLATION: RUMINATING

THE AGE-LONG POLEMICS

Article · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 12,538

1 author:

Mohammed Farghal
Kuwait University
126 PUBLICATIONS   524 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Translation of Adverbial/Determiner Negation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammed Farghal on 02 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

TRANSLATION AND MEANING, PART 9, 2013, 39 - 44 39

‘WORD-FOR-WORD’ OR ‘SENSE-FOR-SENSE’ TRANSLATION:

RUMINATING THE AGE-LONG POLEMICS
Mohammed Farghal
Kuwait University

Abstract:The age-long discussion of the nature of translation activity has been mainly dwelling
since the Roman times of Cicero and Horace on whether the translator should opt for ‘word-
for-word’ or ‘sense-for-sense’ translation. A close look at this dichotomy indicates that the two
methods of translation derive from different disciplines.
On the one hand, the word-for-word approach has its roots in linguistics and philosophy, name-
ly in structural and semantic correspondences, where one-to-one correspondence among the
items in the structural and semantic systems of any pair of languages is assumed to play a key
role in translation activity.
On the other hand, the sense-for-sense approach frees itself from linguistic constraints involving
form and denotation in favor of a more functional perspective that has its roots in sociology and
psychology (mainly viewing language as psycho-social behavior).
It is argued in this paper that recent translation dichotomies including formal vs. dynamic equi-
valence, formal vs. textual equivalence, overt vs. covert translation, semantic vs. communicative
translation, direct vs. indirect translation, foreignization vs. domestication and s-mode vs. i-mode
translation are mere ramifications of the classical polemics.

1. Background
Translation activity is an age-long activity which is necessitated by the fact that groups belonging to
different language communities have been coming into contact with one another for social, econo-
mic, cultural and political reasons, among others, since the dawn of human history. Subsequently, as
man managed to establish literate civilizations and as contact between various cultures became ine-
vitable, learned men started thinking about the nature of translation activity in an attempt to evaluate
and improve the products resulting from such activity. There is ample evidence that early scholars of
the Romans (Cicero, 46 BC and Horace, 20 BC) and later scholars of the ancient Chinese and Arab
cultures seriously contemplated the work of translators and their products (for more details, see
Munday, 2001) and, consequently, realized the ever-existing tug-of-war between form and content
or, alternatively, what St Jerome early on (395 AD) called ‘word-for-word’ or ‘sense-for-sense’. This
dichotomy was most eloquently expressed in the words of the German scholar Friedrich Schleier-
macher (1813) when he saw translation activity as a matter of either bringing the reader close to the
writer or, conversely, bringing the writer close to the reader.

It is interesting to note that the early translation thinkers resolved the conflict between form and con-
tent by siding with one or the other, thus promoting the ‘sense-for-sense’ method of translation (e.g.
St Jerome, who was an adamant supporter of this method) and, simultaneously, condemning the
other method, or, alternatively, proclaiming the ‘word-for-word’ method (e.g. Schleiermacher) while
dismissing the other method as inadequate. In both cases, the focus was on the translation of
scholarly, authoritative works such as literature and the Bible. Each orientation was rooted in a
rational justification: the ‘word-for-word’ sought to capture the form of the original by introducing a
SL foreign pattern of discoursing and thinking while the ‘sense-for-sense’ sought to capture the
function of the original by devising a TL domestic pattern of discoursing and thinking.

A close examination of the ‘word-for-word’ and the ‘sense-for-sense’ indicates that they have dif-
ferent roots. The first is rooted in the assumption that languages involve structural and semantic cor-
respondences and are capable of grammaticalizing meaning interlingually. In this way, a proposition
in one language can be expressed in another language by embracing the phraseology in the original
in terms of structure and denotation. Linguistics and philosophy, therefore, constitute the foundation
stone of this approach. The second, by contrast, frees itself from linguistic constraints by opting for a
40 MOHAMMED FARGHAL

more functional understanding of interlingual communication that has its roots in sociology and psy-
chology and, consequently, views language as pscho-social behavior. Thus, a proposition in one lan-
guage can be expressed in another language while departing in drastic ways from the formal proper-
ties (e.g. structural and lexical features) of the phraseology in the original. It is the message (i.e. the
sense) rather than the form (i.e. the word) that matters in translation.

With the rise of Translation Studies as a popular discipline of enquiry in the twentieth century and
the tremendous expansion of its scope to cover all types of discourse including the fields of tech-
nology, media, culture, business, etc., the world has been transformed into a small global village in
terms of information flow and communication. The reasons for translating are no longer restricted to
rendering masterpieces of literature (e.g. the translation of Greek literature into Latin in the Roman
times) or translating epistemological works (e.g. the translation of Greek works into Arabic during
the Abbasid period (750-1250)). The proliferation of translation materials has necessitated a reconsi-
deration of the ‘word-for-word’ or ‘sense-for-sense’ dichotomy, so the relationship between them
becomes a matter of complementation rather than that of opposition. In this way, a division of labor
is created which would allow us to draw important generalizations along the lines that information-
oriented texts mainly demand ‘sense-for-sense’ translation whereas expression-oriented ones in the
main require ‘word-for-word’ translation. As a result, text types have emerged as an important
variable in translation activity. Similarly, the purpose of the translation, whether commissioned or
translator-initiated, has become a determining factor in choosing between ‘word-for-word’ and
‘sense-for-sense’ translation. However, in actual translation practice the existence of pure forms of
these two options is practically impossible because a translator may have recourse to, for example,
‘word-for-word’ while adopting ‘sense-for-sense’ as a global strategy. To put it differently, the
adoption of one translation method in the dichotomy rather than the other is basically a matter of
dominance rather than exclusion.

2. Critical Account of Translation Dichotomies

If we have a scrutinizing look at the work of main contemporary authors in Translation Studies
(Nida, 1964; Catford, 1965; House, 1977; Newmark, 1981; Gutt, 1991 and Venuti, 1995, among
others) and the buzz terms standing for the main contributions they are remembered/cited for, it will
not be too difficult to come to the conclusion that their theoretical dichotomies (e.g. formal vs. dyna-
mic equivalence or foreignization vs. domestication) are terminological reformulations of the classi-
cal polemics, ‘word-for-word’ or ‘sense-for-sense’ translation. The present paper aims to show that
terminological tricks, albeit intriguing and innovative, are not supposed to blur the raw facts of any
researched state of affairs. I will examine these recent translation orientations to see whether they
offer anything beyond the qualified legitimization of both ‘word-for-word’ and ‘sense-for-sense’ in
today’s translation practice.

To get started, let us quote Newmark (1981: 39) in his distinction between communicative and se-
mantic translation:

“Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that
obtained on the readers of the original. Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the
semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the
original”.

Therefore, while communicative translation is reader-oriented, semantic translation is text- and/ or

author-oriented. Both, however, adhere to the linguistic constraints within the target language. The
former translates at the readership’s level, whereas the latter translates at the text’s and/or author’s
level.
TRANSLATION AND MEANING, PART 9, 2013, 39 - 44 41

If we go back to earlier attempts made by Nida (1964) and Catford (1965) at establishing the concept
of translation equivalence, we’ll find out that they put forward similar ideas, albeit they employed
different terminologies. Influenced by Chomsky’s theory of transformational grammar, Nida sug-
gests working first with underlying propositions in kernel sentences rather than surface structures in
order to capture dynamic equivalence, which aims at producing what he calls equivalent effect princi-
ple, i.e. the translation should produce on its readers the same effects that the original produced on its
readers. This equivalent effect would be largely missed if formal equivalence is given priority in
translation. For Nida, naturalness of expression and equivalent response of a translation should go
hand in hand with conveying the spirit and manner of the original as basic requirements for produ-
cing a successful translation. One should note that the first two requirements are reader-oriented
whereas the third requirement is text-/author-oriented. In this way, they practically reflect New-
mark’s dichotomy (communicative vs. semantic translation) launched 17 years later (1981).

Roughly at the same time, Catford (1965) develops a linguistically-informed approach to translation.
Based on the linguistic aspect of Hallidayan functional linguistics, Catford’s approach draws a key
distinction between formal and textual equivalence. He (1965: 20) defines translation as “the
replacement of textual material in one language by equivalent textual material in another language”.
If we examine closely what he means by textual equivalence, one can easily conclude that it ranges
dynamically between linguistic and contextual features, i.e. between semantic and communicative
translation, in Newmark’s terminology.

Ten years later, House (1977), more influenced by the functional aspect of the Hallidayan approach,
draws a distinction between overt and covert translation. While an overt translation can be readily la-
beled a translation, a covert translation may escape this label. According to House, this distinction is
genre-driven, that is, the translation of some genres, e.g. tourist brochures, may produce covert trans-
lations, while some, e.g. literature, may yield overt translations. Clearly, the tug-of-war remains be-
tween linguistic and contextual features, thus pointing to the forthcoming dichotomy by Newmark,
who himself views House’s distinction in terms of his semantic vs. communicative translation (1981:
52).

A decade later than Newmark, Gutt (1991) views translation in terms of interpretive resemblance.
Influenced by the insights of Sperber and Wilson’s relevance theory (1986), Gutt distinguishes
between direct translation and indirect translation. While direct translation follows the contextual
constraints of the SL text, indirect translation has recourse to the contextual constraints associated
with the emerging TL text. In other words, and apart from technical jargon, Gutt reechoes the text-
/author-oriented vs. the reader-oriented dichotomy in translation activity. This resemblance is made
more explicit by Almazan Garcia’s (2002) interpretation of Gutt’s dichotomy in terms of s-mode
(stimulus-oriented mode), focusing on ‘what was said’ and i-mode (interpretation-oriented mode),
focusing on ‘what was meant’. Thus, indirect translation falls under i-mode (and may, in its extreme
cases, e.g. House’s covert translations, fall outside the domain of translation proper), while direct
translation combines s-mode and i-mode in a unique way. If indirect translation (covert translation)
is not translation proper for lack of interpretive resemblance, then we are back to the same dichotomy
(s-mode- vs. i-mode-oriented translation) within direct translation itself, which so strikingly reflects
the age-long ‘word-for-word’ vs. the ‘sense-for-sense’ translation. That is, the word can be equated
with the stimulus, while the sense can be equated with the interpretation.

Finally, let us examine Venuti’s (1995) distinction between foreignization and domestication. Apart
from power relations between the translating and the translated parties involving cultural, economic
and political factors which Venuti expounds clearly, his dichotomy closely mirrors its predecessors
in terms of actual translation activity. To foreignize is to maintain a socio-cultural gap between
reader and translation, while to domesticate is to bridge this gap. Therefore, we are back to the text-
/author-oriented vs. reader-oriented dichotomy which was contemplated by ancient scholars and re-
42 MOHAMMED FARGHAL

echoed in almost every academic endeavor in present-day Translation Studies. The diagram below
summarizes the highlights of the on-going rumination of the classical ‘Word-for-word’ or “Sense-
for-Sense’ translation discussed above.

‘Word-for-Word’ or ‘Sense-for-Sense’ Translation

(Cicero, 46 BC and Horace, 20 BC /
St Jerome, 395 AD / Schleiermacher, 1813)

Formal vs. Dynamic Equiva-

lence

Formal vs. Textual Equivalence

(Catford 1965)

Overt vs. Covert Translation

(House 1977)

Semantic vs. Communicative Transla-

tion

Direct vs. Indirect Translation

(Gutt 1991)

Foreignization vs. Domestica-

tion

s-mode vs. i-mode Translation

(AlMazan 2001)

Now, let us consider the following example taken from an excerpt translation of a passage from
Abdo Khal’s Poker Award (2009) finalist novel tarmii bi-šarar (Spewing Sparks as Big as Castles)
translated by Anthony Calderbank (Al-Jamal Publications, Baghdad/Beirut, 2009):

“It is said that he (the narrator’s grandfather) desired her (the narrator’s grandmother) constantly but in
order to treat each of his wives equally he had to pay them all a visit in order to end up with my
grandmother, Sanniya. So after he had passed through the first three doors he would go and bathe, put
on perfume and come to my grandmother Sanniya as if not one drop of his water had been spilled”.

Examining the excerpt above, and apart from the purely cultural clues (e.g. having more than one
wife), the reader can readily conclude that it is taken from a translation which is text-/author-ori-
ented. The translator has maintained or semanticized the metaphorical usage of the SL, e.g. ‘as if not
one drop of his water had been spilled’ in reference to degree of virility. The competent target reader
will have no trouble understanding the communicative import of such metaphorical expressions
although they are alien to the TL culture. This ability is contextually rather than culturally triggered.

By contrast, the following translation [my own] of the above excerpt, and again apart from the purely
cultural clues, shows more reader-oriented concerns by domesticating or communicatizing the SL
TRANSLATION AND MEANING, PART 9, 2013, 39 - 44 43

alien usages, e.g. ‘as if he had not expended one tiny thing of his sexual potency’ in reference to
virility.

“It is said that he desired her constantly. Yet, in order to be fair to the other three wives, he had
to stop by each of them before ending up with my grandmother, Sanniya. Bathed and
perfumed, he would approach her as if he had not expended one tiny thing of his sexual
potency”.

It can be argued that the excerpt above includes segments which may lend themselves to either
semanticizing or communicatizing meaning without running the risk of a breakdown in commu-
nication. In both cases, contextual elements are capable of producing cognitive effects that trigger a
relevant interpretation by the reader. In some cases, however, semanticizing a segment may blur the
intended meaning and, subsequently, bring about a breakdown in communication. Therefore, the
competent translator in such instances opts out of ‘word-for-word’ in favor of ‘sense-for-sense’
translation, as can be illustrated by the English rendition of an excerpt from Najeeb Mahfouz's
Awlaad Haaritnaa (1959) by Philip Stewart in Children of Gebelawi (1981):

“Ali said humbly:

'No one in the alley smokes this brand except for the Chief
and yours truly”.

By contrast, following the Arabic wording of the excerpt, Stewart would have produced the rendition
below:

“Ali said humbly:

'No one in the alley smokes this brand except for the Chief
and the slave of God, ma’am”.

Clearly, Stewart opted for communicatizing the meaning of the bold-faced culture-bound expression
in order to avoid a situation where the intended meaning may be too difficult to arrive at by the
reader if semanticization of that segment had been chosen.

In terms of the dichotomies in the diagram, one can argue that the translations above interactively
embrace all of them. They only differ in the focus each places on one member of a dichotomy rather
than the other. This interactive split between form and content practically carries over to all trans-
lation activity. Fortunately, more recent dichotomies, albeit practically duplicating each other, are
tolerant of this inherent split, which is correlated with contextual factors (see below).

3. Conclusion
The arguments made in this paper have clearly shown that the familiar translation dichotomies prac-
tically reflect the same construct regardless of the differing terminological formulations. The proto-
type dichotomy, say form vs. content, should be viewed in terms of complementation rather than op-
position, that is, form and content present themselves as two overriding forces in translation activity;
tilting toward one more than the other produces a focus rather than a pure form. The focus is context-
correlated and may be approximated by the diagram below (Farghal, 2010):
 44 MOHAMMED FARGHAL

The reason for placing the translator in the center of the triangle is to show the dynamic role he plays
by having direct access, from equidistance, to the three contextual factors at the angles. This dynamic
role of the translator would be blurred if a square rather than a triangle were chosen to show the
interaction among the contextual factors. In this way, the type of focus opted for by the translator
depends on the weight that he assigns to each of the three contextual factors. Informed by the
authoritativeness of the SL text, for example, the several translators of the Holy Quran have all tilted
toward form more than content.

The question that poses itself here is: What is the practical alternative to the continued reformulation
of an age-long polemics? The answer, I believe, is to turn attention to individual language-pairs in an
attempt to unravel translational norms and behavior. Though this may be primitively founded on the
basics of Contrastive Analysis (CA), the true goal of such endeavor is to reveal patterns of inter-
lingual transfer in actual translation practice. It is through this kind of effort that translation practi-
tioners and theorists alike become aware of strategies and insights which would further the profes-
sionalism in interlingual communication between any two languages.

References
Almazan Garcia, E. M. (2002), Intertextuality and Translation: A Relevance-theoretic Approach. Unpublished
M. Phil. Thesis. University of Salford.
Catford, J. C. (1965), A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford
University Press.
Farghal, M. (2010), Issues in Translation between Arabic and English. Forthcoming. Kuwait University Press.
House, J. (1977), A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Gutt, E. A. (1991), Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Newmark, P. (1981), Approaches to Translation. Oxford and New York: Pergamon.
Nida, E. (1964), Toward a Science of Translating with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures in
Bible Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Munday, J. (2001), Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London and New York:
Routledge.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (1986), Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Venuti, L. (1995), The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New York: Routledge.

View publication stats