Module:Theories and techniques of translation

Dr.Kerma Cherif
Section of translation-abou bakr university
Third year English license
Objectives of the lesson
-Students should be able to master the different linguistics theories of
translation.
-To know the relationship between linguistics and translation Theories of
translation.
1-Language Studies:
With developments in linguistics early this century, following Ferdinand de
Saussure's dichotomies: langue! parole, signified ,signifier, syntagmatic/
paradigmatic and synchronic, diachronic, extensive research was undertaken
with the aim of describing language empirically. The prevailing view was in
favour of establishing an autonomous discipline, where language phenomena
could be investigated and studied by means of rigorous procedures
and methods, similar to those used in science.

1.1Language Studies and Translation Studies

It is axiomatic to say that language studies are closely interrelated with
translation studies. L. G. Kelly (1979: 34) puts forward the claim that 'to each
stream of language theory, there corresponds a theory of translation.' This is
crystal clear given that every development in linguistic theory is usually
followed by developments in translation studies, though this process is not
commensurate. Moreover, all linguistic schools or trends have devoted part
oftheir work to translation problems, attempting to devisetranslating procedures
from different perspectives. Later trendsin linguistics have laid emphasis on the
need to set up a theory oftranslating armed with rigorous methods that the
translatorcould employ to arrive at precise and more systematic results.
The mutual influence between language and translation has been
highlighted by linguists and translation theorists. J. Catford, forexample, in the
preface to his A Linguistic Theory of Translationarticulates the proposition that:

Since translation has to do with language, the analysis and description of

translation processes must make considerable use of categories set up for the
description of language. It must, in other words, draw upon a theory of
language.

Nida, de Beaugrande, and Hartmann have applied current linguistic theories to

the activity of translation, thus producing new translation theories based on
linguistic theories.

J. Catford (1965) was influenced by Halliday's grammatical rank scale

Improving Halliday's distinction of language levels by introducing the
distinction of the language substance (e.g. the phonic and the graphic), Catford
presented a 'rank-bound'translation, i.e. a translation confined to a single
rank,such as morpheme, word, or phrase. On the basis of the four levels of
language, Catford proposed four types of translation: the phonological, the
graphological, the grammatical, and the lexical.
Indeed, he devoted three chapters of his book to the definitions and applications
of these types.
It might be useful to add that Catford was also influenced, to a great extent, by
the famous anthropologist J. R. Firth in as far as 'situation substance' and
'contextual meaning' are concerned.

Eugene Nida, on the other hand, used Chomsky's transformationalgenerative

grammar in translating. He claimed that generativegrammar was the most
effective way to deal with translationproblems.

One major issue in text linguistics is the role of context in translating. By

understanding context, text linguists can work out the strategies by means of
which the translator analyses and reconstructs the SLT systematically.

Another equally important issue is text type. Text linguists set up text types each
of which requires a different method of translating. They also highlight
the importance of 'cohesive ties', 'structure', 'texture', 'intertextuality', etc. which
can be considered useful and necessary.

2-Theories of translation

Though there have been many serious attempts to arrive at a unified theory of
translating, linguists and translation theorists are still in doubt about such a
possibility. The idea of formulating a reliable theory is of a great significance,
since it would systematize the methods and procedures of translating.

2.1 Linguistic Theories of Translating:

According to Nida:
Linguistic theories of translation are based on a comparison of linguistic
structures of source and receptor texts rather than on a comparison of literary
genres and stylistic features. (1976: 69)
These theories developed as a result of the great development in modern
linguistic theories, and the tendency to study language. scientifically. The
findings of these linguistic theories were applied to other related areas such as
language teaching and translating. However, little benefit came out of these
theories, since they were confined to the study of idealized constructions,
with meaning left out of account.
Later, when meaning was reinstated by linguists and anthropologists such as
Bloomfield, Malinowski, and Firth, all aspects of meaning were investigated,
and new insights about the nature of meaning were provided. Thus, linguists and
translation theorists were motivated to propose that translation theory 'is
mainly an aspect of semantics; all questions of semantics relate to translation
theory'. (Newmark: 1 981: 5)
One major difference between linguistic theories of translating and philological
theories of translating is that linguistic theories are descriptive rather than
prescriptive. They demonstrate how people translate rather than how they should
translate. This does not imply that all linguistic theories are the same, or there
would be one standard theory only. They differ in terms of focus orperspective.
According to Nida:

The principal differences between various linguistic theories (or semi-theories)

of translation lie in the extent to which the focus is on surface structures or
corresponding deep structures. Theories based on surface-structure comparisons
involve the use of more-or-less elaborate sets of rules for matching roughly
corresponding structures. (1976) Nida's list includes contributions from linguists
such as Pottier (1970), Hjelmeslev (1953), Greimas (1966), Coseriu (1970a,
b),Vinay and Darbelnet (1958), Nida (1952, 1964, 1969), Walmsley (1970),
Scharlau (1970), Raabe (1972), Beekman and Callow (1974), Petofi (1971a, b,
and 1972), and most of the articles
published in Meta as representative of linguistic theories of translating.
2.2Sociolinguistic Theories of Translating:
Sociolinguistic theories of translating emerged out of the dissatisfaction with
linguistic theories of translating, and the growing interest in communication.
Such interest resulted from the work of anthropologists who recognized the role
of text recipients in the process of translating. Those changes are demonstrated
in Nida (1964).
Generally speaking, some linguistic theories of translating have demonstrated
sociolinguistic influences by referring to the context of communication. For
example, though Catford's theory of translating (1965) is primarily linguistic and
related to surface structure equivalence, it moves in the direction of the
context of situation in its emphasis on the differences between dialects and
registers. Sociolinguistic theories of translating relate linguisticstructures to a
higher level where they can be viewed in terms of their function in
communication. When discussing a text, the sociolinguist is concerned
particularly with its author, its historical background, the circumstances
involved in its production, and the history of its interpretation, for such
elements figure in the social setting of communication.
Nida and Taber (1969), for example, have pointed out that the old focus on the
form of the message in translating has shifted to the receptors, i.e. the readers.
Therefore, it is the reader's response to the translated message that determines
the correctness of that message. They set the average reader as the only criterion
for measuring correctness in translating. Correctness, in their
view, is not only the possibility of understanding the message by readers but
rather the impossibility of misunderstanding it.

One difference between sociolinguistic theories of translating and linguistic

ones is that in sociolinguistic theories langue, the language system, is as
important as parole the actual use of language. Like linguistic theories of
translating, sociolinguistic theories are descriptive. 'The response of the
receptors must be in terms of the actual response to similar types of texts, and in
terms of what might be regarded as judicial or legal norms.' (Nida 1976: 77).
Nida concludes that such classification of theories of translatingdoes not exist in
actual practice. The translator selects thetheory and method of translating that he
regards mostappropriate to the kind and type of text he is dealing with.

2.3The Grammatical Model of Translating:

This approach to translating and translation teaching is based on translation
theories which regard translating as solely a linguistic operation. The instinctive
feature of this model is its association of translating with grammatical transfer.
Within such a perspective, language is viewed as grammar, and translating is no
more than substituting the grammar and vocabulary of one language for the
grammar and vocabulary of another.
Along these lines, translating has been defined as 'the replacement of SL
grammar and lexis by equivalent TL grammar and lexis' (Catford 1965: 22).
Underlying this attitude is the assumption that language is an objective code
with a fixed structure.
According to Chau, this approach to translating is antimentalistic infocusing on
grammatical structure, while leaving meaning out of account. The task of
translating is considered a symbol-to-symbol transformation. Linguistic signs,
therefore, are supposed to be essentially objective, allowing for a one-tone
One-dimensional matching of codes. When translating, one is operating at the
level of langue rather than parole. The unit of translating is either the word or
the sentence. The Grammatical Model, therefore, yields a literal translation with
cultural differences between the two languages ignored. In terms of translation
teaching, contrastive grammar is the sole method adopted in this model.
Translation and translation techniques
Objectives of the lesson
-By the end of this lesson, students should be able to know what translation is.
-To know the different types and techniques of translation.
-To master how to translate using the different techniques of translation.

Part One: Translation

What is translation
Terminology
The word 'translation' has been used to refer to one of these categories:
a. Translation as the actual process of decoding the SLT and encoding the TLT.
-SLT:the source language text.
-TLT:the target language text.
-SL:the source language.
-TL:the target language.

b. Translation as the end-product, texts resulting from the process of decoding

the SLT and encoding the TLT.
c. Translation as a useful technique in foreign language teaching. It is often
referred to as 'the Grammar Translation Approach'.
d. Translation as an academic field, an interdisciplinary field which spans other
disciplines such as linguistics, semiotics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics,
logic, psycholinguistics, and communication theory.
1.1. Definition of Translation
Defining translation has always been a problematic issue in the sense that one
findsmore than one definition, each one reflects a different perspective and a
theoretical basis in which scholars seek the same goal namely, equivalence. In
common practice, one can usually identify two different senses of translation.
One aims at transferring ideas and messages via rewording or paraphrasing, as
an in everyday life when a layman tries to explain or express ideas in a different
way by using different words only even if within the same language. The other
sees translation as an act of transferring messages from a source language into a
target language, be it oral or written, for the sake of establishing equivalence to
get the appropriate meaning (Yowell&Lataiwish, 2000).Some scholars’
definitions of translation focus on the approach of preserving theoriginal or
source text effect; to others (Nida and Taber, 1969/1982) translation consists of
reformulating the message of the source text into the closest equivalent of the
target language. They gave priority to meaning preservation as much as possible
then focusing on the style.

For others (Catford, 1965), translation is to substitute a piece of writing in one

language by its corresponding piece of writing in another language. As for
Ghazzala (1995), translation is any process that results in transferring the
meaning from one language intoanother. For him the main goal is to deliver
meaning of the source language by using the equivalents available in the target
language.

Translation was defined from two different perspectives. First as a process,

translation is an act of taking a text from one language and transforming it into
another. In this sense, Hatim and Munday focus on the part of the translator.
Second as a product, translation focuses on the results achieved by the translator,
the concrete product oftranslation.
.
1.2. Types of Translation
At this level, translation will be looked at from the viewpoint of classification of
typesand methods. According to Hatim and Munday (2004), Jacobson in his
seminal paper(1959/2000) distinguishes between three main types of written
translation: Intra-ingual translation, inter-lingual translation, and inter-semiotic
translation.
1-Intra-lingual translation: is the translation of textual materials within the
same language and may include rewording or paraphrasing.
2-Inter-lingual translation: is to translate textual materials from one language
into another. It is also referred to as the proper translation.
3-inter-semiotic translation: is the translation or the interpretation of the verbal
signs by non verbal signs as translating ideas or emotions into a painting or in
symphony of music.
In addition, each theorist looks at these types of translation differently and
classifiesthem in different ways. For Ghazzala (1995), for example, literal
versus free translation is a sufficient classification. According to him, all the
available typologies can be squeezed into these two types. All in all, the
available typologies may include the following (Ghazzala1995: 5)
1. Semantic versus communicative translation.
2. Formal versus dynamic translation.
3. Non-pragmatic versus pragmatic translation.
4. Non-creative versus creative translation.
Even though, Ghazzala (1995) discussed only the literal and free translation, he
started by literal translation which, according to him, is of two types:
1.Word-for-word translation
2. Direct translation.
T he first type aims at translating individual words only taking no consideration
of thegrammatical or other linguistic differences. Hence word-for-word
translation involvesextreme fidelity to the wording of the source text and forces
the translator to set the exact equivalents. On the other hand, the second type,
direct translation, considers the grammar and the linguistic differences.
Many theoreticians, including Ghazzala (1995), claimed that this type could be a
verydangerous method because it may destroy the meaning. In this sense,
Chukovsky said that “its adoption frequently leads to a complete distortion of
the meaning of the original” (1984:6).Lefevere (1975) argued that this method
has severe limitations.
On the other hand, free translation is to translate under no limitation, translate
freely; it is also referred to as sense-for-sense translation. In free translation, the
translator focuses on producing a natural readable target text. It is more target
text oriented than literal translation; free translation does not take much
consideration to preserve the source text wording. Catford (1965:25) suggested
that free translations should be unbounded.

Lecture two

Objective of the lesson

-The students should be able to know the different procedures and strategies and
use them to translate

1. Translation procedures and strategies

The translating procedures, as stated by Nida (1964 pp.241-45) are as follow:

1.1-Technical procedures:

A. analysis of the source and target languages;

B. a thorough study of the source language text before making attempts
to translate it;
C. Making judgments of the semantic and syntactic approximations.
 1.2-Organizational procedures:

constant reevaluation of the attempt made; contrasting it with the existing

available translations of the same text done by other translators, and checking
the text's communicative effectiveness by asking the target language readers to
evaluate its accuracy and effectiveness and studying their reactions (pp. 246-
47).

Krings (1986:18) defines translation strategy as "translator's potentially

conscious plans for solving concrete translation problems in the framework of a
concrete translation task," and Seguinot (1989) believes that there are at least
three global strategies employed by the translators: (i) translating without
interruption for as long as possible; (ii) correcting surface errors immediately;
(iii) leaving the monitoring for qualitative or stylistic errors in the text to the
revision stage.

Moreover, Loescher (1991:8) defines translation strategy as "a potentially

conscious procedure for solving a problem faced in translating a text, or any
segment of it." As it is stated in this definition, the notion of consciousness is
significant in distinguishing strategies which are used by the learners or
translators. In this regard, Cohen (1998:4) asserts that "the element of
consciousness is what distinguishes strategies from these processes that are not
strategic."

Furthermore, Bell (1998:188) differentiates between global (those dealing with

whole texts) and local (those dealing with text segments) strategies and confirms
that this distinction results from various kinds of translation problems.

Venuti (1998:240) indicates that translation strategies "involve the basic tasks of
choosing the foreign text to be translated and developing a method to translate
it." He employs the concepts of domesticating and foreignizing to refer to
translation strategies.

Jaaskelainen (1999:71) considers strategy as, "a series of competencies, a set of

steps or processes that favor the acquisition, storage, and/or utilization of
information." He maintains that strategies are "heuristic and flexible in nature,
and their adoption implies a decision influenced by amendments in the
translator's objectives."

Taking into account the process and product of translation, Jaaskelainen (2005)
divides strategies into two major categories: some strategies relate to what
happens to texts, while other strategies relate to what happens in the process.

Product-related strategies, as Jaaskelainen (2005:15) writes, involves the basic

tasks of choosing the SL text and developing a method to translate it. However,
she maintains that process-related strategies "are a set of (loosely formulated)
rules or principles which a translator uses to reach the goals determined by the
translating situation" (p.16). Moreover, Jaaskelainen (2005:16) divides this into
two types, namely global strategies and local strategies: "global strategies refer
to general principles and modes of action and local strategies refer to specific
activities in relation to the translator's problem-solving and decision-making."

Newmark (1988b p.81) mentions the difference between translation methods

and translation procedures. He writes that, "While translation methods relate to
whole texts, translation procedures are used for sentences and the smaller units
of language". He goes on to refer to the following methods of translation:

a-Word-for-word translation: in which the SL word order is preserved and

the words translated singly by their most common meanings, out of context.
 b-Literal translation: in which the SL grammatical constructions are
converted to their nearest TL equivalents, but the lexical words are again
translated singly, out of context.

c-Faithful translation: it attempts to produce the precise contextual

meaning of the original within the constraints of the TL grammatical
structures.

d-Semantic translation: which differs from 'faithful translation' only in as

far as it must take more account of the aesthetic value of the SL text.

e-Adaptation: which is the freest form of translation, and is used mainly for
plays (comedies) and poetry; the themes, characters, plots are usually
preserved, the SL culture is converted to the TL culture and the text is
rewritten.

f-Free translation: it produces the TL text without the style, form, or

content of the original.

g-Idiomatic translation: it reproduces the 'message' of the original but tends

to distort nuances of meaning by preferring colloquialisms and idioms
where these do not exist in the original.

h-Communicative translation: it attempts to render the exact contextual

meaning of the original in such a way that both content and language are
readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership (1988b: 45-47).

Newmark (1991:10-12) writes of a continuum existing between "semantic" and

"communicative" translation. Any translation can be "more, or less semantic—
more, or less, communicative—even a particular section or sentence can be
treated more communicatively or less semantically." Both seek an "equivalent
effect." Zhongying (1994: 97), who prefers literal translation to free translation,
writes that, "[i]n China, it is agreed by many that one should translate literally, if
possible, or appeal to free translation."

In order to clarify the distinction between procedure and strategy, the

forthcoming section is allotted to discussing the procedures of translating
culture-specific terms, and strategies for rendering allusions will be explained in
detail.