Scribd
Upload
15 views6 pages

Translation Theories and Their Evolution: 1. Word-for-Word vs. Sense-for-Sense (Pre-20th Century)

The document discusses the evolution of translation theories from historical debates between word-for-word and sense-for-sense translation to modern functional and linguistic models. It highlights key theories such as Vinay and Darbelnet's translation strategies, Nida's equivalence concepts, and Skopos Theory, emphasizing their relevance to translation technology. Additionally, it addresses the differing perspectives of linguists, translators, theorists, and scientists, advocating for interdisciplinary collaboration in advancing translation studies and technology.

Uploaded by

khaanum101
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
15 views6 pages

Translation Theories and Their Evolution: 1. Word-for-Word vs. Sense-for-Sense (Pre-20th Century)

The document discusses the evolution of translation theories from historical debates between word-for-word and sense-for-sense translation to modern functional and linguistic models. It highlights key theories such as Vinay and Darbelnet's translation strategies, Nida's equivalence concepts, and Skopos Theory, emphasizing their relevance to translation technology. Additionally, it addresses the differing perspectives of linguists, translators, theorists, and scientists, advocating for interdisciplinary collaboration in advancing translation studies and technology.

Uploaded by

khaanum101
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Translation Theories and Their

Evolution
This section explores various translation theories, their historical
development, and their relevance to both Translation Studies and
translation technology.

1. Word-for-Word vs. Sense-for-Sense (Pre-20th


Century)
The oldest debate in translation theory is between word-for-word
(literal) translation and sense-for-sense (free) translation:
• Word-for-word translation: Replaces each word in the
source language with an equivalent word in the target language.
• Sense-for-sense translation: Focuses on preserving
meaning rather than exact words.

This debate can be traced back to Cicero (1st century BC) and St.
Jerome (4th/5th centuries AD). It also influenced historical
translation practices, such as:
• The Bible translations into Latin.
• The Greek-to-Arabic translations of scientific and
philosophical texts.
• The Chinese translations of Buddhist sutras from Sanskrit.

2. Linguistic Theories (1950s–1960s)


During the mid-20th century, linguistic approaches became
dominant, focusing on structural analysis and equivalence.

Vinay and Darbelnet’s Translation Strategies (1958)

Vinay and Darbelnet proposed seven translation procedures,


ranging from:
1. Borrowing (direct use of source-language words).
2. Calque (literal translation of phrases).
3. Literal translation (word-for-word).
4. Transposition (changing grammatical structure).
5. Modulation (changing perspective).
6. Equivalence (using equivalent expressions).
7. Adaptation (adjusting cultural references).

Although their study focused on English and French, these


procedures have influenced modern translation strategies.

Catford’s Equivalence Theory (1965)

Catford introduced linguistic equivalence, analyzing how


translations shift across lexical, grammatical, and textual
levels.

Nida’s Formal vs. Dynamic Equivalence (1964)

Eugene Nida introduced:


• Formal Equivalence: Stays close to source-language
structures.
• Dynamic Equivalence: Adjusts to the target-language norms
for naturalness.

Dynamic equivalence influenced modern translation technology,


especially machine translation models that prioritize readability.

3. Functional Theories (1970s–1980s)


As linguistic theories failed to account for cultural and
contextual factors, new functionalist approaches emerged.

House’s Overt vs. Covert Translation (1977)

Juliane House categorized translation into:


• Overt Translation: Clearly shows it is a translation.
• Covert Translation: Feels like an original text in the target
language.

This theory influenced localization strategies in translation


technology.

Newmark’s Semantic vs. Communicative Translation


(1981)
Peter Newmark introduced:
• Semantic Translation: Follows the source text’s meaning
and structure.
• Communicative Translation: Focuses on the reader’s
experience, similar to Nida’s dynamic equivalence.

This theory is relevant for machine translation post-editing,


ensuring reader-friendly outputs.

4. Chomsky’s Transformational-Generative
Grammar (1957, 1965)
Noam Chomsky introduced transformational-generative
grammar, which explains language through:
• Deep structure (underlying meaning).
• Surface structure (grammatical form).

His model influenced early rule-based machine translation


systems, where phrase-structure rules were used to analyze
sentence patterns.

5. Skopos Theory (1980s–1990s)


Hans Vermeer (1996) introduced Skopos Theory, meaning
“purpose” in Greek. It states that:
• The purpose of a translation determines the translation
strategy.
• A single source text can have multiple valid translations,
depending on target audience needs.

This theory is highly relevant to translation technology, as it


supports:
• Pre-editing (simplifying input for machine translation).
• Post-editing (adjusting machine output for better readability).
• Translation quality assessment (“fitness for purpose”).

Holz-Mänttäri’s Translational Action Theory (1980s)


Justa Holz-Mänttäri expanded Skopos Theory by viewing translation
as intercultural communication.
• The source text is an “information offer”.
• The translated text must be adapted for the target
audience.

This approach aligns with machine translation workflows, where


translations are adjusted based on intended use (e.g., technical
documentation vs. literary texts).

6. Chesterman’s Call for a Unified Theory (2000)


Andrew Chesterman (2000) argued that no single theory explains all
translation phenomena.
• He called for a comprehensive empirical approach,
combining linguistic, functional, and cultural perspectives.
• In translation technology, this suggests the need for hybrid
machine translation models that integrate linguistic rules,
statistical models, and neural networks.

Conclusion
Translation theories have evolved from literal vs. free translation
to complex functional and linguistic models.
• Linguistic theories focus on structure and equivalence.
• Functionalist theories emphasize purpose and audience
needs.
• Modern translation technology benefits from Skopos
Theory and controlled language, ensuring fit-for-purpose
translations.

However, no single theory fully explains all translation


challenges, highlighting the need for interdisciplinary
approaches in Translation Studies and translation
technology.
Academic and Professional Groups in Translation

Translation involves four key groups with differing perspectives:


linguists, professional translators, translation theorists, and
scientists.
1. Linguists vs. Translators

• Linguists take a descriptive approach, analyzing how


translation works as an extension of language studies (Neubert,
1996).
• Translators prefer a prescriptive approach, expecting
theory to provide practical solutions (Chesterman, 2000).

2. Translators vs. Translation Theorists

• Theorists focus on meaning, procedures, and cultural


aspects but do not always offer practical guidelines (Newmark,
1981).
• Translators seek problem-solving strategies but often do
not engage with theory due to time constraints (Noguiera, 2002).
• Literary translators favor cultural theories, while technical
translators prefer linguistic theories (Lefevere, 1996).

3. Linguists vs. Translation Theorists

• Linguists view translation as a scientific process, while


theorists see it as both science and art (Savory, 1968).
• Many linguists ignore translation theory, while theorists rarely
apply modern linguistic insights (Bell, 1991).

4. Linguists vs. Scientists (Computational Linguists &


Engineers)

• Scientists use linguistic theories to develop Machine


Translation (MT) systems, focusing on computational efficiency
(Bennett, 2003).
• Linguists hesitate to engage with MT, as language is a
human process not easily simulated.
• MT systems help test linguistic theories, but challenges like
ambiguities remain unresolved.

Conclusion

These groups have conflicting views, but collaboration is key to


advancing translation studies and technology.

You might also like