the main focus is the central recurring theme of ‘word-for-word’ and ‘sense-for- sense’ translation, a

debate that dominated much of translation theory in what Newmark (1981: 4) called the ‘pre-linguistics
period of translation’.

‘word-for-word’ (i.e. ‘literal’) and ‘sense-for-sense’ (i.e. ‘free’) translation

The ‘interpreter’ of the first line is often read by translation studies as being the literal (‘word-for-word’)
translator, while the ‘orator’ tried to produce a speech that moved the listeners.

However, the text also notes that in ancient Rome, the "interpreter" had a low social status due to a lack of
education, leading to a limited and pedantic understanding, resulting in inelegant, word-for-word
translations. The negative view of word-for-word translation was shared by figures like the poet Horace,
who emphasized the importance of producing aesthetically pleasing and creative texts in the target
language.

The influence of this perspective continued through the centuries, with figures like St. Jerome citing
Cicero's approach to justify their own translations. St. Jerome's Latin revision and translation of the
Christian Bible, known as the Latin Vulgate, aimed to establish an official and standardized Latin translation
for church use

St. Jerome's statement is commonly understood to refer to the distinction between 'literal' (word-for-word)
and 'free' (sense-for-sense) translation. He rejected the word-for-word approach because it often resulted
in absurd translations that obscured the original text's meaning. Instead, he advocated for a sense-for-
sense approach, which focused on conveying the sense or content of the source text. This debate between
'literal vs. free' and 'form vs. content' translation approaches has persisted through modern times.

He emphasized the special 'mystery' of both the meaning and syntax of the Bible, as altering the sense of a
sacred text could lead to charges of heresy. Jerome also made a distinction between different types of
texts, translating some idiomatically (sense for sense) while applying a more literal approach to the Bible,
paying closer attention to words, syntax, and ideas of the original.

Early Chinese and Arabic discourse on translation

Hung and Pollard's description of translation, particularly their use of modern Western translation
terminology, reflects a similar argumentative pattern to the Cicero/St. Jerome debate mentioned earlier.
They discuss alternative translations for terms, emphasizing considerations of aesthetics and style. There is
also an early indication of distinguishing between different text types, treating non-literary source texts
differently from literary target texts.

Some issues raised, such as transliteration, are related to the challenge of translating foreign elements and
names into a non-phonetic language like Chinese. However, it's important to note that Hung and Pollard
later expanded their discussion, highlighting the changing context in which these translations took place.
This evolution involved increased linguistic competence, theological expertise, and stricter regulation in
translation forums.

The translation choices were elaborated upon in prefaces to these texts, with one of the most influential
figures being Dào’a ̄n, a religious leader who oversaw a significant translation program of Buddhist sutras.
These prefaces addressed a recurring dilemma faced by Buddhist translators: whether to create a free,
polished, and abridged version tailored to Chinese preferences or a faithful, literal, and repetitive
translation that might be less readable. In one preface to the translation of the Prajnaparamita in 382 AD,
Dào’a ̄n identified five elements called "losses" where the meaning underwent changes in translation.

Reversal of Word Order: Foreign words are completely reversed to adhere to Chinese word order, resulting
in the first loss to the original.

Stylistic Adaptation: Foreign sutras often have a plain style, while the Chinese prefer an elegant style. To
match the preferences of the Chinese audience, the translation needs to adopt an elegant style, leading to
the second loss to the original.

Omission of Repetition: Foreign sutras tend to include repetitive exclamations and exhortations, which are
often reduced or omitted, constituting the third loss to the original.

Reduction of Commentaries: Foreign sutras may have commentaries that elucidate meaning but appear
disorderly. Around 1,500 words of these commentaries are removed, resulting in the fourth loss to the
original.

Structural Changes: Foreign sutras sometimes revisit and approach a subject from a different angle,
incorporating previous sentences into the new discourse. In the translation process, this structural
complexity is often omitted, leading to the fifth loss to the original.

These changes aim to adapt the foreign text to Chinese preferences and readability. Additionally, Dào’a ̄n
highlights three factors that require special care in translation: addressing a new audience, respecting the
sanctity of the foreign text's words, and acknowledging the cumulative work of many followers

he translation tradition in the Arab world, particularly during the Abbasid period from 750 to 1250 AD

The passage mentions two distinct translation methods adopted during this period. The first method, , was
highly literal. It involved translating each Greek word into an equivalent Arabic word and borrowing Greek
words when no Arabic equivalents existed. However, this word-for-word approach was found to be
unsuccessful.

The second method, , followed a sense-for-sense approach. This method aimed to create fluent target texts
that conveyed the meaning of the original Greek texts without distorting the Arabic language.

The primary focus is on how translation strategies and choices evolved over time, and different scholars
have proposed varying explanations for these changes:
Classical Western European Influence: The passage begins by acknowledging that the terminology used in
discussing translation is heavily influenced by classical Western European discourse. It notes that while this
terminology can be applied to the Arabic tradition, there are other ways to consider translation.

Salama-Carr's Perspective: Salama-Carr's viewpoint is highlighted, which emphasizes how translation

strategies played a role in establishing a new system of thought in Arabic–Islamic culture, both conceptually
and terminologically. This approach emphasizes the development of Arabic neologisms and the use of
instructive commentaries and notes by Arab translators.

Gutas' Historical Perspective: Gutas provides a historical perspective that rejects a simplistic chronological
explanation for shifts in translation style during the Abbasids' organized translation program. Instead, Gutas
emphasizes social, political, and ideological factors as key drivers. He suggests that the increasing number
of texts led to a greater demand for translators, resulting in their professionalization and improved
knowledge of Greek. Gutas also argues that the differences in translation style should be attributed to
different "translation complexes" operating independently on various texts, such as medical, philosophical,
and mathematical works.

In summary, the passage explores different perspectives on the evolution of translation strategies in the
Arabic tradition, with a focus on the role of translation in shaping Arabic–Islamic culture and the factors
influencing translation choices and styles.

2.3 Humanism and the Protestant Reformation

Before the introduction of the printing press (which occurred in China in the eleventh century and in
Europe in the fifteenth century), texts were painstakingly copied by hand, resulting in numerous errors and
variations in readings

Luther faced criticism from the Church for adding the word "allein" (meaning 'alone' or 'only') in his
translation of the Bible, as there was no direct Greek equivalent in the source text. The accusation was that
the German translation implied that an individual's belief alone was sufficient for a good life, rendering "the
works of the law" (i.e., religious laws and practices) unnecessary. Luther defended his choice by explaining
that he aimed to use "pure, clear German" for emphasis when he added "allein."

Luther followed the example of St. Jerome in rejecting a word-for-word translation strategy, as he believed
it wouldn't convey the same meaning as the source text and could sometimes be incomprehensible

Luther's contribution to the free and literal translation debate may not have represented a significant
theoretical advancement over what St. Jerome had discussed over a thousand years earlier. However,
Luther's crucial impact lay in his democratization of the Bible's language, making it accessible to ordinary
people. He emphasized the importance of considering the target language (TL) and the target text (TT)
reader.

" As a result of Luther's translation efforts, the language of ordinary Germans became more clear and
robust, ensuring that the Bible could be understood by a broader audience.

2.4 Fidelity, spirit and truth

Louis Kelly, in his work "The True Interpreter" (1979), delves into the history of Western translation theory.
He begins with the teachings of Greek and Latin writers from Classical Antiquity, tracing the evolution of
terms like 'fidelity,' 'spirit,' and 'truth.' These concepts were highly contested and depended on historical
context and societal perceptions of translation.

The concept of fidelity, initially associated with literal, word-for-word translation, was redefined to
emphasize faithfulness to the meaning rather than the literal words of the author only in the late
seventeenth century.

Similarly, 'spirit' had dual meanings; it originally denoted creative energy or inspiration in literature but was
also used in a religious context, referring to the Holy Spirit of God, particularly by St. Augustine and St.
Jerome. Eventually, 'spirit' lost its religious connotation and came to signify the creative energy of a text or
language.

2.5 Early attempts at systematic translation theory Dryden, Dolet, Tytler and Yán Fù

In the seventeenth century England, as noted by Amos, figures like Denham, Cowley, and Dryden marked a
significant advancement in translation theory. They provided deliberate and reasoned statements that
were clear in their purpose and meaning. During this period, aside from the Bible, translation into English
was predominantly focused on verse renderings of Greek and Latin Classics.

Translation in this era was highly regarded as an exercise in creativity and novelty, leading to some
exceptionally free translations. Abraham Cowley (1618–1667), in his preface to Pindaric Odes (1640),
criticized the faithful and word-for-word conversion of poetry into French or Italian prose. Cowley's
approach aimed to counter the inevitable loss of beauty in translation by employing "our wit or invention"
to create new beauty. He candidly admitted to having "taken, left out, and added what I please" to the
Odes, showcasing the liberty and creativity embraced by translators during this time. Cowley even
suggested the idea of transforming the source text as needed to achieve the desired artistic effect in the
translation.

Abraham Cowley, a 17th-century English poet and translator, introduced the term 'imitation' to describe a
very free method of translating, which involved departing from both the words and the sense of the source
text. This approach aimed to best reproduce the "spirit" of the source text.

John Dryden, another English poet and translator of the same era, had a significant impact on subsequent
translation theory and practice. In the preface to his translation of Ovid's Epistles in 1680, Dryden
categorized all translation into three main types:

'Metaphrase': A literal translation that adheres to the source text word by word and line by line.

'Paraphrase': A translation with latitude, where the author's meaning is preserved, but not necessarily the
exact words. This corresponds to faithful or sense-for-sense translation.

'Imitation': Translation that abandons both the words and the sense, allowing for greater freedom. This can
be understood as adaptation in contemporary terms.
Dryden criticized translators who adopted metaphrase, likening them to "verbal copiers." He dismissed
such "servile, literal" translation as a foolish and unproductive task. Similarly, Dryden rejected imitation,
where the translator uses the source text as a pattern to write as they believe the author would have in a
different time or place. He considered imitation to be detrimental to the memory and reputation of the
original author.

Dolet set out five principles in order of importance:

The translator must perfectly understand the sense and material of the original author, while having the
freedom to clarify obscurities.

The translator should possess perfect knowledge of both the source language (SL) and the target language
(TL) to maintain the language's majesty.

The translator should avoid word-for-word translations.

The translator should steer clear of Latinate and unusual forms.

The translator should eloquently assemble and connect words to avoid awkwardness.

Tytler outlined three general "laws" or "rules" instead of principles:

The translation should provide a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work.

The style and manner of writing should match that of the original.

The translation should exhibit the same ease of composition as the original work.

2.6 Schleiermacher and the valorization of the foreign

Schleiermacher introduced a distinction between two types of translators working on different types of
texts:

The "Dolmetscher," who translates commercial texts.

The "Übersetzer," who works on scholarly and artistic texts.

Schleiermacher regarded the second type as operating on a higher creative level, breathing new life into
language. While translating scholarly and artistic texts may appear challenging due to cultural and linguistic
differences, Schleiermacher's central concern was bridging the gap between the original writer and the
target language reader. He moved beyond the traditional binary of word-for-word and sense-for-sense
translation and proposed two approaches for the "true" translator:

The translator can strive to keep the writer's style intact and make the reader approach the writer's style.

Alternatively, the translator can aim to maintain the reader's style and bring the writer closer to the
reader's understanding.

These two approaches reflect Schleiermacher's innovative perspective on translation that goes beyond
mere linguistic fidelity to consider the dynamic interaction between the writer, translator, and reader.

Schleiermacher's preferred strategy in translation is to move the reader closer to the writer's style and
intention, rather than attempting to mimic how the author would have written in the target language. This
approach is different from Dryden's "naturalizing" method, which aligns foreign texts with the typical
patterns of the target language. Instead, Schleiermacher advocates an "alienating" or "foreignizing"
method, where the translator strives to provide the German reader with the impression they would have
received if they had read the work in its original language.

By using an alienating approach, the translator emphasizes the foreign elements in the text, bending the
target language's word usage to faithfully convey both the sense and the sound of the source text. This
method allows the translation to import foreign concepts and cultural nuances into the target language.

Several consequences arise from this approach:

The reader's impression of the text will depend on their level of education and understanding, which may
differ from that of the translator.

Translators may need to employ a specialized language of translation, creatively adapting language to
convey the foreignness of the source text where necessary.

2.7 Towards contemporary translation theory

Steiner points out that much of the early theory of translation revolves around vague and undefined
alternatives, like "letter" vs. "spirit" and "word" vs. "sense." He considers this lack of clear and analyzable
definitions to be a central epistemological weakness in translation theory.

Modern theorists also share concerns about the vagueness and subjectivity of criteria used to judge
translations during this historical period. They highlight the highly normative nature of these judgments.

In response to these shortcomings, translation theory in the latter half of the twentieth century attempted
to redefine concepts like "literal" and "free" in more operational terms, adopt scientific approaches to
understanding "meaning," and develop systematic taxonomies of translation phenomena.

Case 1

In the case study on assessment criteria for translations, the focus is on how expert evaluators, such as
markers for translation examinations or professional translation revisers, communicate with less
experienced readers, often candidates or junior translators. This examination explores the extent to which
the vague vocabulary of early translation theory influences the assessment criteria used in contemporary
translation evaluation.

For example, the Chartered Institute of Linguists' (CIoL) Diploma in Translation provided assessment criteria
that included:

Accuracy: Ensuring the correct transfer of information and complete comprehension.

Appropriate choice of vocabulary, idiom, terminology, and register.

Cohesion, coherence, and organization.

Accuracy in technical aspects of punctuation, etc.

While "accuracy" appears twice, the criteria try to define it more precisely by referring to the "correct
transfer of information" and "complete comprehension." This aligns with modern linguistic approaches and
terminology influenced by Nida.

However, when examining examiners' reports, a more subjective vocabulary is still evident. Phrases like
"awkwardness" or "unnatural" are used to critique translations, emphasizing the importance of TL fluency.
Surprisingly, the term "literal translation" is both criticized and used in a relative sense, as "too literal" or
"totally literal," suggesting a shift in meaning from an extreme form to a close lexical translation.

Similarly, UNESCO's Guidelines for Translators maintain the importance of "accuracy" and emphasize
conveying the same impression on the TL reader as the original would on the foreign-language reader,
reflecting Schleiermacher's concept of moving the reader towards the author. However, UNESCO suggests
finding a balance between "sounding like a translation" and being "aggressively characteristic," akin to
Dryden's metaphor of "dancing on ropes with fettered legs." These guidelines recognize the diversity of TL
readers, accommodating non-native speakers, and recommend different translation strategies for various
text types, aligning with a text-type approach proposed by Reiss. In the case study on assessment criteria
for translations, the focus is on how expert evaluators, such as markers for translation examinations or
professional translation revisers, communicate with less experienced readers, often candidates or junior
translators. This examination explores the extent to which the vague vocabulary of early translation theory
influences the assessment criteria used in contemporary translation evaluation.

For example, the Chartered Institute of Linguists' (CIoL) Diploma in Translation provided assessment criteria
that included:

Accuracy: Ensuring the correct transfer of information and complete comprehension.

Appropriate choice of vocabulary, idiom, terminology, and register.

Cohesion, coherence, and organization.

Accuracy in technical aspects of punctuation, etc.

While "accuracy" appears twice, the criteria try to define it more precisely by referring to the "correct
transfer of information" and "complete comprehension." This aligns with modern linguistic approaches and
terminology influenced by Nida.

However, when examining examiners' reports, a more subjective vocabulary is still evident. Phrases like
"awkwardness" or "unnatural" are used to critique translations, emphasizing the importance of TL fluency.
Surprisingly, the term "literal translation" is both criticized and used in a relative sense, as "too literal" or
"totally literal," suggesting a shift in meaning from an extreme form to a close lexical translation.

Similarly, UNESCO's Guidelines for Translators maintain the importance of "accuracy" and emphasize
conveying the same impression on the TL reader as the original would on the foreign-language reader,
reflecting Schleiermacher's concept of moving the reader towards the author. However, UNESCO suggests
finding a balance between "sounding like a translation" and being "aggressively characteristic," akin to
Dryden's metaphor of "dancing on ropes with fettered legs." These guidelines recognize the diversity of TL
readers, accommodating non-native speakers, and recommend different translation strategies for various
text types, aligning with a text-type approach proposed by Reiss.

Case Study 2: Translator's Preface

This case study examines translator's prefaces in the context of the English translations of Marcel Proust's
"À la recherche du temps perdu." The translations and their respective prefaces shed light on how the
cultural values and translation methods evolve over time.

In the 1981 translation by Terence Kilmartin, his preface indicates a loyalty to the author and emphasizes
being faithful to Proust's "meaning and tone of voice." This notion of "loyalty" and "faithfulness" to the
author reflects concepts from earlier translation theory. Kilmartin critiques the perceived "literal"
translation, favoring a more "natural" English style, echoing the debate between form and content.

The 2002 multi-volume translation project overseen by Christopher Prendergast and the translator Lydia
Davis offers a more nuanced understanding of translation theory. Prendergast acknowledges the difficulty
of managing Proust's complex syntactic structures in English. He rejects a complete modernization of the
text and suggests that occasionally retaining "oddly unEnglish shapes" can preserve the original's
"estranging force." Davis, too, strives to reproduce Proust's style faithfully, even down to word choice,
syntax, and sounds, recognizing that some of Proust's linguistic features are essential to capturing the
work's essence.

Discussion of Case Studies:

These case studies demonstrate that the vocabulary of early translation theory remained relevant well into
the 20th century. Terms such as "literal," "free," "loyalty," "faithfulness," "accuracy," "meaning," "style,"
and "tone" continue to play a significant role in translation discussions.

There appears to be a preference for "natural" target language (TL) texts that read as if they were originally
written in the TL. This preference aligns with Luther's idea of a straightforward, idiomatic translation.
However, the case of the new Penguin Proust translation suggests a potential shift in approach.

Furthermore, the modification of the term "literal" (e.g., "too literal," "totally literal") indicates a shift in its
usage over time. "Literal" now implies a translation that adheres very closely to the original, and translators
who go beyond this are sometimes criticized.

These case studies primarily focus on translations intended for general readers or novice translators. In the
next chapter, we will explore how translation theory evolved in the second half of the 20th century, with a
move towards systematization of various elements of the translation process.

1)
 In reviews of translations, readers often comment on various aspects of the translation
itself, including:

1. Accuracy: Readers frequently discuss the accuracy of the translation in conveying the
original author's meaning. They may mention whether they felt the translation was faithful
to the source text.
2. Fluency and Readability: Reviewers often assess the fluency and readability of the
translation. They may comment on whether the text flows smoothly in the target language
and if it is easy to understand.
3. Language Style: Comments about the language style used in the translation are common.
Readers might discuss whether the translator's choice of words, idioms, and sentence
structure aligns with the tone and style of the original work.
4. Cultural Adaptation: Some reviews consider how well the translation adapts cultural
references or context from the source text to make it relatable to readers in the target
culture.
5. Linguistic Quality: Reviewers may evaluate the linguistic quality of the translation,
commenting on the translator's proficiency in the target language and their ability to
capture nuances.
6. Transparency: Transparency refers to how "invisible" the translation feels; readers might
comment on whether they were aware they were reading a translation or if it felt natural.
7. Creativity vs. Faithfulness: Some reviews discuss the balance between creativity and
faithfulness to the source text. Readers may express preferences for more literal
translations or those that take creative liberties.
8. Translator's Notes: If the translation includes translator's notes or explanations for
cultural or linguistic references, reviewers might share their thoughts on the helpfulness of
these notes.

The vocabulary used in these comments can vary but often includes terms similar to those
described in this chapter, such as "faithful," "literal," "idiomatic," "smooth," "awkward,"
"natural," and "true to the original." Reviewers may also employ metaphors or analogies to
convey their impressions of the translation quality, similar to historical references like
"letter vs. spirit" or "word-for-word vs. sense-for-sense."

For recent reviews and specific comments on recent translations, I recommend checking
reputable literary or translation-focused websites, newspapers, or online platforms that
feature book reviews.

2) Early writing on translation in Ukrainian languages and cultures has its own unique
characteristics while sharing some similarities with the writings discussed in this chapter.
Ukrainian translation theory, like translation theory in many other languages, has been
influenced by a combination of classical, religious, and literary traditions. Here, we'll
explore some key aspects of early Ukrainian translation theory and make some
comparisons with the broader context of translation theory.
1. Religious and Literary Origins: Ukrainian translation theory, particularly in its early
stages, was heavily influenced by religious texts and biblical translation. The translation of
religious texts, including the Bible, played a significant role in the development of the
Ukrainian language and the creation of early translation theories.

2. Early Ukrainian Translators: Some of the earliest Ukrainian translators were religious
figures who engaged in translating religious texts from Greek and Church Slavonic into Old
Ukrainian. Their primary goal was to make religious texts accessible to the Ukrainian-
speaking population.

3. Influence of Church Slavonic: Similar to other Slavic languages, Ukrainian had a close
relationship with Church Slavonic, which influenced the translation process. Many early
Ukrainian translations were adaptations of Church Slavonic texts into vernacular Ukrainian,
which involved linguistic and stylistic considerations.

4. Emphasis on Faithfulness: Early Ukrainian translation theories often emphasized the

importance of faithfulness to the source text, particularly in religious contexts. This reflects
a common theme in translation theory discussed in the chapter, where faithfulness to the
original was a central concern.

5. Cultural and Linguistic Shifts: Over time, as Ukrainian language and culture evolved,
so did translation theory. There was a growing emphasis on the need to adapt translations
to the linguistic and cultural context of Ukrainian readers.

6. Transition to Literary Translation: As Ukrainian literature developed, translation theory

expanded to encompass literary translation. Ukrainian writers and scholars began
discussing issues related to translating literary works, such as poetry and fiction.

In terms of differences and similarities, early Ukrainian translation theory shares some
common themes with translation theories in other languages, such as the importance of
faithfulness, linguistic considerations, and the influence of religious texts. However, the
specific cultural and linguistic context of Ukraine, as well as its historical ties to neighboring
countries and languages, have shaped its unique approach to translation.

To explore the topic further and make detailed comparisons, it would be beneficial to refer
to specific writings on translation theory in Ukrainian languages and cultures. Additionally,
examining the papers in Theo Hermans' work, "The Manipulation of Literature," can
provide insights into how translation theory varies across different languages and cultures,
including Ukrainian, within a broader European context.

3)

To compare Dáo'ān’s losses and difficulties, Dolet’s principles, Tytler’s laws, and Yán Fù’s
principles, we can create a visual comparison table. This table will help us identify the
similarities and differences between these principles and assess their usefulness for guiding
a translator. Here's a simplified visual comparison:
 Usefulness for
Principles Focus Similarities Differences Translators

Dáo'ān’s Cultural Concern for Focus on adapting source Useful for preserving
losses adaptation cultural nuances culture to target cultural aspects

Dolet’s Faithfulness, Faithfulness to Emphasis on author's Useful for maintaining

principles style source text style and eloquence authenticity and style

Faithfulness, Faithfulness to Prioritizes content over Useful for ensuring

Tytler’s laws style meaning style semantic accuracy

Yán Fù’s Fidelity to the Emphasis on fluency and Useful for balancing
principles Fidelity, fluency source text elegance in TL fidelity and readability

Similarities:

 All four sets of principles emphasize the importance of faithfulness or fidelity to the source
text in one form or another.
 They all consider the role of style, eloquence, or fluency in the translation process, albeit
with varying degrees of emphasis.
 Cultural adaptation, nuances, and context are factors that are taken into account by some
of these principles, particularly Dáo'ān’s losses and Yán Fù’s principles.

Differences:

 Dáo'ān’s losses and Yán Fù’s principles focus more on achieving fluency and elegance in
the target language, prioritizing the readability and aesthetic quality of the translation.
 Dolet’s principles place a significant emphasis on preserving the author's style and
eloquence in the translation, which can be challenging when translating into languages
with different linguistic structures.
 Tytler’s laws prioritize the faithful representation of meaning and content over style,
advocating for the translator to adopt the "soul" of the author.

Usefulness for Translators:

 Dáo'ān’s losses can be useful for preserving cultural nuances and making the translation
relatable to the target audience.
 Dolet’s principles are valuable for maintaining the author's style and eloquence, especially
when translating works of literature or texts with distinct authorial voices.
 Tytler’s laws are helpful for ensuring semantic accuracy and conveying the author's
intended meaning.
 Yán Fù’s principles offer guidance on achieving both fidelity to the source text and fluency
in the target language, striking a balance between faithfulness and readability.

The usefulness of these principles for guiding a translator depends on the specific
translation task, the nature of the source text, and the expectations of the target audience.
Translators often need to apply a combination of these principles to create effective and
contextually appropriate translations.