Tikrit University

English Department

Translation

For 4th stage

Dr. Nawfal Saeed Majeed

(( God bless his soul and makes the rest of paradise ))

 Chapter Three

Translation : Definitions , Types & Models .

There is no unanimous agreement on the definition of translation , nor are translation theorists
agreed on the types and models of translation .

1.According to Ray (1962) translation means the transference of meaning from a language into
another .

2. According to Savory (1973) is of the view that translation is concrened with the conveyance of
meaning and style of the source linguistic text into the target text .
3. For Belyalyev also ( Buzell 1969) translation is a process by which thoughts and ideas are
transferred from one language into another .

4. Tweney and Hoeman (1976) define translation as the process in which meaningful utterances in
one language are converted into meaningful utterances in another linguistic system .

5. Seleskovltch (1976) considers translation as a substitution of a sequence of symbols in one

language by a sequence of symbols in another language entailing the transference of source
language meaning into the target language .

6. For Newmark (1982) translation is a craft which attempts to replace a written message and/or
statement in one language by the same message and/or statement in another language .

Some other scholars reject the suggestion that translation involves transference of meaning from
the source text into the target language text . Nida (1974) believes that translation is concerned with
the reproduction of the closest equivalent of the source language text ( or textual material ) in the
target language ( I.e. translation is based on equivalence not transference ). Catford (1965) too
rejects such a definition of translation and disagrees with Dostert who defines translation as the
transference of meaning from one set of patterned symbols into another set of patterned symbols .
Since Catford believes that meaning is the property of a language I.e. an S.L. text has an S.L. meaning
and a T.L. text has a T.L. meaning .

Types of Translation :

Roman Jacobson (1959) classifies translation into three types :

1. Interlingual translation : I.e. translation proper , in which the S.L. text is replaced by equivalent
material from the T.L. Yet , Jacobson believes that no full equivalence is possible , and that even
synonymous signs do not yield full equivalence ; since each sign has a set of unique associations and
connotations .
2. Intralingual translation : (or rewording) : This type means or refers to interpreting the verbal signs
in a certain language by another set of verbal signs in the same language . This process may also be
called paraphrase , as is the case with paraphrasing a certain poem or a literary text .

3. Intersemiotic translation : This is a form transmutation in which one interprets certain verbal signs
of a non- verbal system . Popovic , A. (McGuire 1980) classifies translation in terms of four types of
equivalence :

1. Linguistic equivalence (I.e a word -for-word translation).

2. Paradigmatic equivalence (I.e emphasizing elements of grammar) .

3. Stylistic equivalence (I.e. aiming at the reproduction in the expressive identity of the S.L.).

4. Textual (syntagmatic) equivalence (I.e emphasizing formal similarity between the S.L. and the T.L.
texts).

Some linguists have considered translation as an innate and natural skill in bilinguals , a sort of
translation competence in the Chomskyan sense or implication (Newmark 1982) By " natural
translation " they mean any translation practiced by bilinguals who have not got any previous
training in the fields of translating . Seleskovitch on the other hand , suggests an interpretive
translating theory in which she bases her argument on "sense" and not on the linguistic units of
words or sentences ; and emphasize the translator's necessary awareness of the purpose behind the
utterance , not of language and contrastive linguists, (ibid) .

Nida on the other hand suggests two main types of equivalence :

1. Formal equivalence : In which the translator focuses his attention on the similarity of form
between the S.L. text and the T.L. text as well as on the content , in order to enable the T.L. reader to
grasp and understand as much as possible of the original text .

2. Dynamic equivalence : what Nida means by dynamic equivalence is that the translator has to
reproduce an equivalent effect on the receiver . As the experienced by the S.L. reciever (I.e.
establishing a similar relationship between the T.L. receiver and the T.L. message as that between
the S.L. receiver and the S.L. message).

It is in accordance with this principle that Nida cites J.B.Philips' rendering of Romans 16 where the
idea of " greeting with a holy kiss " is rendered as " a hearty hand-shake " which goes also with the
target language culture .

As for Catford (1965) , he classifies the types of translation in accordance with three factors : extent ,
level of language , and rank .
1. Translation types according to Extent :

A. Full Translation : I.e. replacing all the S.L. textual material by equivalent T.L. material without
leaving any part untranslated , nor implanting S.L. meaning in the T.L by transference .

B. Partial Translation : This type of translation implies that some part of the S.L. text does not
have an equivalent in the T.L. , and that the translator resorts to transliteration and
transference in such circumstances .

E.g. Quran , ch. 97 , lines 2 :

The Night of Al-Qadr is better (in worship) than a thousand month .

) ‫( ليلة القدر خير من ألف شهر‬

The translator may make use of explanatory footnotes in such a case , in order to explain the
difficulty of rendering such problematic instances .

2. Translation Types according to Level .

1. Total Translation : I.e. translation proper in which all the S.L. levels are replaced by T.L. levels. (S.L.
lexis and grammar by equivalent T.L. lexis and grammar ; and S.L. phonology / graphology by non-
equivalent lexis and grammar).

2. Restricted Translation : I.e. translation is restricted to a certain level of language only (phonology ,
graphology , lexi , or grammar).

a. Phonological Translation : This is a type of restricted translation in which the S.L. phonological
units are replaced by equivalent T.L. Phonological units on the basis of being related to the same
phonic substance . It may be the case however that an S.L. Phonological item has more than one
possible T.L. Phonological equivalent unit , and the translator in such a case has to select the nearest
.

Phonological translation is sometimes practiced by actors and mimics deliberately when assuming a
foreign or dialectical pronunciation ; and it may also take place in the imperfect and faulty
pronunciation of learners of some foreign language .

Phonological translation is useful in film- dubbing ; in which the translator tries to select such
equivalents that match the S.L. Phonological forms that are uttered by the S.L. performers .

In the translation of poetry too , the translator may attempt to look for such T.L. sounds that
correspond to some of the S.L. sounds since form is of a unique importance in poetry .
b. Graphological Translation :

This is also a type of restricted translation in which the S.L. graphology is replaced by equivalent T.L.
graphology on the basis of relationship to the same graphic substance .

E.g. English "N" .... Greek "n"

Unlike phonetics that describes the phonic substance in a scientific and specific way , there's no
graphic theory unfortunately , which , if existed , would provide some adequate description of
graphic categories . This is why the question of graphological equivalence is much more difficult than
the phonological one .

Typographers sometimes make use of graphological similarity or graphological translation in order

to add a special flavour to the written text . For instance , some titles of books on Arabic or Islam are
presented in Arabic looking praphology or English letters ; which entails a sort of semigraphologgical
translation : (Arabic)

c. Lexical Translation :

This type of translation is also a type of restricted translation in which an S.L. Lexical item is replaced
by an equivalent T.L. Lexical item on the basis of relationship to the same situation substance . The
process of picking a few words from a foreign language and employing them in utterances of the
speaker's mother - tongue is an instance of such translation (on the level of lexis only) .

E.g. This is rajul I shufed .

d. Grammatical Translation :

This type of translation too is among the restricted ones in which the S.L. grammatical item is
substituted by an equivalent T.L. grammatical item on the basis of being related to the same
situational substance . ( Lexical translation , grammatical translation , and total translation share the
same substance , « situation » .

3. Translation Types according to the Notion of Rank :

a. Word - to - word Translation : This type of translation , as is clear from its name , word - oriented (
I.e. established at the word rank ). The translator in this type of translation handles the text word by
word . Such a method of translation can be useful in throwing light on the nature of the S.L. lexi and
grammar , since it slavishly follows the S.L. grammatical structures .
E.g. He went home (English) ...‫هو ذهب بيت‬

(Arabic word - to - word translation)

b. Literal Translation : This type of translation is also word - oriented , but it does not follow the S.L.
grammar as is the case with word - to - word translation .

The translator in this case adopts T.L. grammar .

E.g. He went home (S.L.)... (T.L.) : ‫ذهب الى البيت‬

He went to school (S.L.)...(T.L.): ‫ذهب الى المدرسه‬

c. Literary Translation : Unlike the preceding rank - bound two types of translation is rank - free (I.e.
not restricted to a certain grammatical rank) . The translator aims at reproducing a similar effect on
the T.L. receiver as that of that the S.L. one . The translator is not concerned with the S.L. text as a
form but with the message and how to express it in the T.L. . This is what Nida calls "dynamic
equivalence", and what Catford calls "free translation" or "literary translation" .

Once in a blue moon ... (S.L.) ... if translated according to the word - to - word method or the literal
approach wouldn't be acceptable : ; ‫مره في قمر أزرق‬but it can be successfully rendered by finding an
equivalent message in the T.L. :

‫نادرا جدا‬

As for Newmark , he proposed two main types of translation (1982) ; I.e. the communicative method
and the semantic method :

1. The Communicative Approach of Translation :

In this method , Newmark suggests that the translator aims at producing the same effect on the T.L.
receiver as that of the original S.L. text on the translation . Communicative translation is subjective
as the translator tries to create an effect on the T.L. reader or receiver . In this approach ( the
communicative method ) , the translator gives himself the right to remove obscurities , to eliminate
repetition , and specify generic terms . In other words , the translator tries his best to make the
thought and cultural content of the original more accessible to the reader . The language that
accompanies actions or stands for it as well as texts that contain recommendations , instructions and
value - judgments should rather be communicatively , translated according to Newmark .

In communicative translation , the message is the most important thing , and the translator has to
make the T.L. receiver think , feel , and / or act in a way that is almost equivalent to that of the S.L.
reader or receiver . In fact , communicative translation emphasizes the force of the message more
than the content of the message . When the translator thinks that t original text has to be improved
or that it requires a new arrangement , Newmark recommends the communicative approach ,
because such a translation seems to be smoother , simpler , clearer , and more direct (ibid) .

2. The Semantic Approach ( or Method of Translation ) :

Semantic translation tries to render the S.L. formal and contextual meaning of the original texts as
accurately as the semantic and syntactic structures of the original S.L. text allow . The semantic
method of translation concentrates on the message itself rather than on its effect or force .

E.g. " !" ‫الكلب يعض‬

Semantic translation into English : This dog bites .

Communicative translation into English : Beware of the dog !

In semantic translation , the translator sometimes finds himself obliged to interpret or explain t text
( a metaphor for instance ) if he feels that it is meaningless to the reader .

Communicative and semantic translation sometimes coincide especially in the case when the text
contains a general rather than culture - specific message , and when the form and content of the
message are equally important . Sometimes , a part of the text requires a semantic approach
whereas another part of it has to be communicatively treated and translated .

A semantic translation , however , tends to be more complex , more concentrated , inclusive of more
details , and follows the content rather than the intention of the author of the original text , or the
resultant effect . It may involve loss of meaning , and sometimes results in poorly written and
repetitive text . One should not forget however , that repetition is sometimes a linguistically relevant
feature that the translator has to make care of / and reproduce its effect :

E.g. De Gaulle's 18th June 1940 broadcast : « Car la France n'est pa seule ! Elle n'est pas seule ! Elle
n'est pas seule !

The Semantic Approach :

< For France is not alone! She is not alone! She is not alone ! >

The communicative method : < For remember this , France doesn't stand alone . She isn't isolated >
In semantic translation , the translator's main concern is being loyal to the author of the original text
, more than anything else whereas in communicative translation the translator is more concerned
with the force and effect of the message on the receiver .

As for Savory ( 1969) , he classifies translation into two main types : literary , and non - literary .

1. Literary Translation : This type of translation , according to Savory , comprises the translation of all
forms of writing in which the form isn't less important than the content . This includes the
translation of prose into prise , poetry into poetry , and poetry into prose .

2. Non - literary Translation :

This type of translation includes the translation of all scientific and technical material in which the
content ( or the matter ) has the priority over the form (or manner ) . The translator's main concern
is to reproduce the information of the original text with a high degree of accuracy .

Models of Translation :

The models of translation have been proposed by many scholars and theorists reflect two main
concerns regarding the procedures that take place in the process of translating . The first concern is
that analysing and comprehensibly understanding t meaning of the source text . The second concern
is the selection of an appropriate target language equivalent for the source text material .

Nida (1964) divides the first phase into many stages : analysis of the lexico - grammatical features of
the source language text , discourse analysis which considers the meaning of the text as a part of the
wider context of the total relevant discourse ; analysis of the communicative context of the total
relevant discourse ; analysis of the communicative context that takes into consideration the
situational features of time , place , audience , intent , and response ; as well as analysis of the
cultural meaning of the source text since an utterance can't be detached from the total cultural
setting of the S.L. .

As for the second phase in the process of translating , Nida's T.L. equivalent is based on or
reproduced in accordance with the norms of the T.L. .
Nida and Taber (1974) discuss the process of translating in terms of two systems . The first system
sets up a series of rules which can be applied to the surface structure of the S.L. text . The second
system consists of three stages :

a. The analysis of the surface of the S.L. text specify the semantic elements .

b. The transference of the analysed material in the translator's mind from the S.L. medium to the T.L.
medium .

c. Re - structuring the transferred material in the translator's mind in such a way that makes it go
with the T.L. norms .

Nida's model of the processes involved in translating reflects the stages as in the following diagram :

Text. Translation

Transfer in the

translator's mind

Analysis of Re-structuring

semantic according to

elements. T.L. norms

McGuire (1980) explained Nida's diagram by applying it to the translation of an interesting instance ,
that of the English greeting term «hello» and its translation into French .

Source language. Receptor language

Hello. (T.L.) CA VA?

Friendly greeting Transfer

on arrival. ( decision to

distinguish

between forms

of greeting that

are available in

the T.L. "ca va"

or "hello" )

In French , there are two forms of greeting , when meeting a person , I.e. 'ca va' ; 'hello' . The first is
used when meeting someone and greeting him face to face ; whereas the second form (hello) is used
for greeting when answering the telephone . English unlike French doesn't distinguish between the
two situations . When one translates such an instance from English into French , the translator h to
decide whether to select the first term or the second , but his decision should be based on the type
of situation in order to choose the appropriate equivalent . German too , like French unlike English ,
draws a distinction between the two situations , and makes use of two forms of greeting : " wie
ght's ihnen?" for face to face greeting ; and "hello" when answering a telephone .

As for Newmark (1982) the process of translating consists of three stages :

A. The analysis of the various linguistic and extra - linguistic aspects of meaning as well as taking into
consideration the intention of the S.L. writer .

B. In the second stage , the translator is mainly concerned with direct translating procedures or , on
the basis of corresponding syntactic structures or in terms of a logical interlanguage .

C. The text is re - structured in accord with the norms of the norms of the T.L.

Dutra (1984) suggests the following model of translating :

ci c2

A ... MI ... R/T/A2 ...MI ...R2

I.e. 'A' stands for the source text author . 'MI' stands for the original message . 'CI' represents the
original code or source language . 'R' stands for the receiver of the source text . 'T' stands for the
translator . 'A2' stands for the new author of the new author of the target text .'MI' represents the
message that has been restructured by the translator . 'C2' stands for the second code , or the target
language . 'R2' stands for the target language receptors .

In other words , an author has transmitted a message (which in his ) via a certain code ( the S.L.) to a
receptor (who is the translator in this case) or the new author , who undertakes t rendering of the
message in terms of a different code (the target language) to the T.L. Receptors .