LECTURE 8.

TRANSLATION MODELS

1. TRANSLATION PROCESS
2. SITUATIONAL MODEL OF TRANSLATION
3. TRANSFORMATIONAL MODEL OF TRANSLATION
4. SEMANTIC MODEL OF TRANSLATION
5. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC MODEL OF TRANSLATION

TRANSLATION PROCESS
To start a machine translation, computer designers invited a group of
experienced translators to ask them a question, seemingly naive but directly
referring to their profession: how do you translate? Could you tell us in detail
everything about the translation process? What goes on in a translator's brain?
What operation follows what?
Professional translators say that this simple questions can take everyone by
surprise, for it is a terribly difficult thing to explain what the process of translation
is. Attempts to conceptualize the translation process have brought to life some
theories, or models, of translation. The translation model is a conventional
description of mental operations on speech and language units, conducted by a
translator, and their explanation.
Approximately, four translation models can be singled out:
1. Situational (denotative) model of translation
2. Transformational model of translation
3. Semantic model of translation
4. Psycholinguistic model of translation.
Each model explains the process of translation in a restrictive way, from
its own angle, and, therefore, cannot be considered comprehensive and wholly
depicting the mechanism of translation. But together they make the picture of
translation process more vivid and provide a translator with a set of operations
to carry out translation. Now we’ll talk on each model in a more detailed way.

SITUATIONAL MODEL OF TRANSLATION

One and the same situation is denoted by the source and target language.
But each language does it in its own way. To denote means to indicate either the
thing a word names or the situation a sentence names. Hence is the term of
denotative meaning, or referential meaning, i.e. the meaning relating a language
unit to the external world; and the term of denotation, or a particular and explicit
meaning of a symbol. To translate correctly, a translator has to comprehend the
situation denoted by the source text.
Peter Newmark (born in 1916 and died in 2011) was
an English professor of translation at the University of Surrey. He was one of the
main figures in the founding of Translation Studies in the English-speaking world
in twentieth century. He is widely read through a series of accessible and
occasionally polemical works: A Textbook of Translation (1988), Paragraphs on
Translation (1989), About Translation (1991), More Paragraphs on
1
Translation (1998). He was chair of the editorial board of the Journal of
Specialised Translation.
As P. Newmark stressed, one should translate ideas, not words and then
find the proper means of the target language to express this situation (idea). If the
translator does not understand the situation denoted by the source text, his or her
translation will not be adequate, which sometimes happens when an inexperienced
translator attempts to translate a technical text.
The main requirement of translation is that the denotation of the source
text must be equal to the denotation of the target text. That is why a literary word-
for-word translation sometimes results in a failure of communication.
Візьми хліба у пекарні is equivalent to the English Buy some bread in the
bakery only because the receptor of the Ukrainian sentence knows that the
situation of buying in Ukrainian can be denoted by a more general word взяти
whose primary equivalent (not for this context) is to take which does not contain
the seme of money-paying. Thus, this model of translation emphasizes
identification of the situation as the principal phase of the translation process.
This theory of translation is helpful in translating neologisms and realia: and
as a matter of fact, this model of translation is used for attaining the equivalent on
the situation level. It is the situation that determines the translation equivalent
among the variables: instant coffee is equivalent to розчинна кава but not
миттєва кава. The situation helps to determine whether a translation is
acceptable or not. For example, we have to translate the sentence For that
somebody was baited by the rights. Without knowing the situation, we might
translate the sentence as За це когось цькували праві as the dictionary‟s
translation equivalent for to bait is цькувати, піддавати цькуванню. But in case
we know that by the smb President Roosevelt is meant, our translation will be
inappropriate and we had better use the equivalent За це президента Рузвельта
жорстко цькували праві.
A weak point of this model is that it does not explain the translation
mechanism itself. One situation can be designated by various linguistic means.
Why choose this or that variable over various others? The model gives no answer
to this question. Another flaw проріха, недолік in this theory is that it does not
describe the systemic character of the linguistic units. Why do the elements of the
idiom to lead somebody by the nose not correspond to the Ukrainian водити за
ніс? Why does this idiom correspond to the Ukrainian дурити когось? This model
does not describe the relations between the language units in a phrase or sentence
and thus gives no explanation of the relations between the source and target
language units. This model gives reference only to the extralinguistic situation
designated by the sentence.

TRANSFORMATIONAL MODEL OF TRANSLATION

When translating, a person transforms the source text into a new form.
Transformation is converting one form into another one. There are two
transformation concepts in the theory of translation. In one of them,
transformation is understood as an interlinguistic process, i.e., converting the
2
source text into the structures of the target text, which is translation proper. Special
rules can be described for transforming source language structures as basic units
into target language structures corresponding to the basic units. For example, to
translate the “adverbial verb” one must introduce an adverb, denoting the way the
action is performed, into the target language structure: She stared at me. – Она
пильно дивилася на мене.
In the second concept, transformation is not understood as broadly as
replacing the source language structures by the target language structures.
Transformation here is part of a translation process, which has three phases:
 Analysis: the source language structures are transformed into basic units
of the source language. For example, the sentence I saw him enter the room. is
transformed into I saw him. He entered the room.
 Translation proper: the basic units of the source language are translated
into the basic units of the target language: Я бачила його. Він зайшов у кімнату.
 Synthesis: the basic units of the target language are transformed into the
terminal structures of the target language: Я бачила, як він зайшов у кімнату.
As it is seen, this concept develops the ideas of generative grammar
introduced by N. Chomsky. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this
model? It is employed in contrastive analysis of two language forms that are
considered to be translation equivalents, as it verbalizes what has been transformed
in them and how. This model provides us with transformation techniques. It
explains how we translate equivalent-lacking structures into another language.
This model is important for teaching translation because it recommends that one
transform a complex structure into a simple one. However, a disadvantage of this
model consists in inability to explain the choice of the transformation made,
especially at the third synthesis phase. It does not explain the facts of translation
equivalence on the situational level. It also ignores sociocultural and extralinguistic
aspects of translation.
Avram Noam Chomsky (born December 7, 1928) is an
American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, political activist,
and social critic. Sometimes described as "the father of modern linguistics",
Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of
the field of cognitive science. He holds a joint appointment as Institute Professor
Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and laureate
professor at the University of Arizona, and is the author of over 100 books on
topics such as linguistics, war, politics, and mass media. Ideologically, he aligns
with  libertarian socialism.

SEMANTIC MODEL OF TRANSLATION

This model places special emphasis on semantic structures of the source
and target texts. According to it, translation is conveying the meaning of the
source text by the target text. The two texts can be called equivalent in meaning
if their semantic components are close or identical. In order to translate, one must
single out the meaningful elements of the original and then choose the target
language units that most closely express the same content elements. This model is
3
sometimes called Content-Text Model. For this procedure, a componential (or
seme) analysis is widely employed. Like in the transformation model, the process
of translation is subdivided into some phases:
 Analysis: the semantics of the source language units are represented by
deep semantic categories.
 Translation: the relevant semantic categories of the source language are
made equal to the deep semantic categories of the target language.
 Synthesis: the semantic categories of target languge are verbalized. This
model gives a good explanation of the translation equivalence and of the reasons
for translation failures when irrelevant (or not all relevant) semes have been taken
into consideration. It explains the mechanism of selecting one variable among
synonyms: that synonym is chosen which has the greatest number of relevant
semes similar to the source language word.
But the insufficiency of this model is that the process of singling out semes
is a very difficult one. It does not explain the cases of situational equivalence - why
instant coffee is equal to розчинна кава, with their semes not coinciding? It also
ignores connotations of the word and the function of the text.

PSYCHOLINGUISTIC MODEL OF TRANSLATION

Translation is a kind of speech event. And it develops according to the
psychological rules of speech event. The scheme of the speech event consists of
the following phases:
 The speech event is motivated.
 An inner code program for the would-be message is developed.
 The inner code is verbalized into an utterance.
Translation is developed according to these phases: a translator
comprehends the message (motif), transforms the idea of the message into his/her
own inner speech program, then outlays this inner code into the target text.
The point of this theory is that it considers translation among speaking,
listening, reading and writing as a speech event. But there is evidence to suggest
that translators and interpreters listen and read, speak and write in a different way
from other language users, basically because they operate under a different set of
constraints.
While a monolingual receiver is sender-oriented, paying attention to the
speaker's/writer's message in order to respond to it, the translator is essentially
receiver-oriented, paying attention to the sender's message in order to re-transmit
it to the receiver of the target-text, supressing, at the same time, personal reactions
to the message.
There are two essential stages specific to the process of translating and
interpreting: analysis and synthesis – and a third stage, revision, available only to
the translator working with the written text. During the analysis stage, the
translator reads/listens to the source text, drawing on background knowledge, to
comprehend features contained in the text. During synthesis, the target text is
produced. Then the draft written translation is revised /edited.

4
 However, the explanational force of this model is very restricted, inner
speech being the globally disputable problem in both psychology and linguistics

Peter Newmark, from his book “A Texbook of Translation”

Translation has its own excitement, its own interest. A satisfactory
translation is always possible, but a good translator is never satisfied with it. It can
usually be improved. There is no such thing as a perfect, ideal or ‘correct'
translation/
A translator is always trying to extend his knowledge and improve his means
of expression; he is always pursuing facts and words. He works on four levels:
translation is first a science, which entails the knowledge and verification
of the facts and the language that describes them - here, what is wrong, mistakes of
truth, can be identified;
secondly, it is a skill, which calls for appropriate language and acceptable
usage;
thirdly, an art, which distinguishes good from undistinguished writing and
is the creative, the intuitive, sometimes the inspired, level of the translation;
lastly, a matter of taste, where argument ceases, preferences are expressed,
and the variety of meritorious translations is the reflection of individual
differences.
Whilst accepting that a few good translators (like a few good actors) are
'naturals', I suggest that the practical demands on translators are so wide…
As a means of communication, translation is used for multilingual notices,
which have at last appeared increasingly conspicuously in public places; for
instructions issued by exporting companies; for tourist publicity, where it is too
often produced from the native into the 'foreign' language by natives as a matter of
national pride; for official documents, such as treaties and contracts; for reports,
papers, articles, correspondence, textbooks to convey information, advice and
recommendations for every branch of knowledge. Its volume has increased with
the rise of the mass media, the increase in the number of independent countries,
and the growing recognition of the importance of linguistic minorities in all the
countries of the world.
Its importance is highlighted by the mistranslation of the Japanese telegram
sent to Washington just before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, when
mokasuiu was allegedly як стверджують translated as 'ignored' instead of
'considered', and by the ambiguity неясність, невизначеність in UN Resolution
242, where 'the withdrawal from occupied territories' відняття was translated as
le retrait des territoires occupes відступ, and therefore as a reference to all of the
occupied territory to be evacuated by the Israelis.