TRANSLATION STUDIES

Chapter 1 Main issues of translation studies Translation studies is a relatively new academic research area that has expanded in recent years, especially in the last five decades. While translation was formerly studied as a language-learning methodology or as a part of comparative literature, translation workshops and contrastive linguistic courses, the new discipline belongs to the work of James Holmes. His seminal paper The name and nature of translation studies! is generally accepted as the founding statement for the field. Holmes draws attention to the limitations imposed by the fact that translation research was dispersed across older disciplines. He also stresses the need to forge other communication channels!, cutting across the traditional disciplines, to reach all scholars working in the field, from whatever background. Holmes puts forward an overall framework, describing what translation studies covers. The same framework has been presented by Gideon Tour . "t describes two main branches of translation studies# !ure and Applied. The ob$ectives of the !URE areas of research are# % The description of the phenomena of translation &des"ripti#e translation theor '. ( The establishment of general principles to explain and predict such phenomena &translation theor '. The descriptive branch of pure! research in Holmes &)escriptive translation studies' has three possible ways# examination of the produ"t, the $un"tion and the pro"ess. The theoretical branch is divided into general and partial theories. The term general is referring to those writings that describe every type of translation and include generali*ations that can be relevant for translation as a whole. +artial or restricted theories are# Medium-restricted theories ,rea-restricted theories -ank-restricted theories Text-type-restricted theories Time-restricted theories +roblem-restricted theories The A!!LIED branch of Holmes.s framework concerns# % Translator training &teaching methods, testing techni/ues, etc.' ( Translation aids &dictionaries, grammars, information technology' 0 Translation criticism &evaluation of translation including the marking of student translation' )espite this categori*ation, Holmes himself admits that several different restrictions can apply at any one time and that the theoretical, descriptive and applied areas do influence one another. Toury states that the main merit of the divisions is that they allow a clarification and a division between the various areas of translation studies which in the past have often been confused. +ym points out that Holmes.s map omits any mention of the individuality of the style, decisionmaking processes and working practices of human translators involved in the translation process.

Chapter % Translation theory before the twentieth century 1p until the second half of the twentieth century, translation theory was locked in what 2eorge 3teiner calls a sterile debate over the triad of literal, $ree, and $aith$ul translation This can be called the pre-linguistic period of translation &according to 4ewmark', in this period we have an important debate about the translation between# - Word for word &literal translation' - 3ense for sense &$ree translation' This distinction between literal and free goes back to 5icero and 3t. 6erome. 5icero in De optimo genere oratorum, indicates a main difference between the interpreter and the orator. The former is seen as the literal, the latter tried to produce a speech that moved the listeners. "n the -oman times the word for word translation was exactly what it said, so, the replacement of each individual word of the source text &2reek' with its e/uivalent in 7atin. 3t 6erome, one of the most important translators, cites the authority of 5icero.s approach to $ustify his own 7atin translation of the 2reek 3eptuagint 8ld Testament. ...I render not wordfor-word, but sense-for-sense. 6erome disparaged the word for word translation because it cloaking the sense of the original while the sense for sense translation allowed the sense or content of the source language to be translated. The same type of concern has occurred in other rich and ancient translation tradition such as in 5hina and the ,rab world where it seems that sense for sense translation has been largely adopted. &artin Luther 9or over a thousand years after 3t. 6erome, issues of free and literal translation were linked to the translation of the :ible and other religious and philosophical texts. The -oman 5atholic 5hurch was concerned about the correct established meaning of the :ible to be transmitted. There are several examples of translations that were $udged heretical, banned or censored. The 9rench humanist ;tienne )olet was burned at the stake for a rien du tout!. :ut non-literal or non-accepted translations had become a powerful weapon against the 5hurch. M. 7uther had been critici*ed by the 5hurch for the addition of the word allein! &alone<only' making the work of law! redundant in his own translation of +aul.s words in -oman, because there was no e/uivalent 7atin word in the source text. 7uther follows 3t 6erome to re$ect the word for word translation strategy 'lora Amos 3he notes that early translator often differed considerably in the meaning they gave such as faithfulness!, accuracy! and even the word translation! itself. Louis (ell 7ooks in detail at the history of translation theory tracing the difference of meaning of terms truth! and spirit! through the centuries. John Dr den ;nglish poet and translator would have enormous impact on subse/uent translation theory and practice. He reduces all translation in 0 categories# % Metaphrase &word by word and line by line' which corresponds to literal translation ( +araphrase &words are not strictly followed as their sense' which corresponds to faithful or sense-for-sense translation 0 "mitation &forsaking to word and sense' very free translation, adaptation. S"hleierma"her 9riedrich 3chleiermacher is recogni*ed as the founder of modern protestant theology and of modern hermeneutics. He points out a romantic approach to interpretation based not on absolute truth but on individual.s inner feeling and understanding ,ccording to 3chleiermacher there are two different type of text#

% 5ommercial texts ( 3cholarly and artistic texts 3chleiermacher sees the latter on a higher creative plane. His strategy is to move the reader toward the writer giving the reader the impression that he receives the work in his own language. The translator must valori*e the foreign and transfer that into the T7. 3chleiermacher.s respect for the foreign text was to have considerable influence over scholars in modern times. Chapter ) ;/uivalence and e/uivalent effect ,fter the period of fight! between free =s literal we can talk about the meaning of a particular issue like for example e*ui#alen"e! Roman Ja+o,son in his opera 8n linguistic aspects of translation! divided translation in 0 categories# - intralingual &an interpretation of verbal signs by other signs in the same language' - interlingual &classic translation' - intersemiotic &or transmutation because it translate in non verbal signs like music and paint' 6akobson examines interlingual translation and stress the attention on the key issues of this type of translation# lin-uisti" meanin- and e*ui#alen"e. He follows the idea &3aussure' that the signifier and the signified, together, form the linguistic sign, but the sign is arbitrary. 9or the message to be e/uivalent! in source and target language, the code units will be different since they belong to two different sign systems &languages' which partition reality differently. ;x. house# "s feminine in -omances languages and neuter in 2erman. 6akobson approach the problem of the e/uivalence with the famous definition# Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem in language and the pivotal concern of linguistics. 8nly in poetry 6akobson talk about untranslatable! and re/uires a creative transposition. The /uestion on meaning, e/uivalence and translatability became a prominent issue of translation studies in the >?@s and will be tackled by one of the most important figure in translation studies, the ,merican ;ugene 4ida. Nida He moves translation into a more scientific era by incorporating recent work in linguistics. Hi is linked to the theory of generative transformational grammar! by 5homsky. The most important idea of 4ida is that a word hasn.t meaning without the context. 4ida presents a series of techni/ues as an aid for the translator in determining the meaning of different linguistic items, i.e. hierarchical structuring &superordinate and hyponyms', componential analysis or semantic structure analysis. 4"),# The old terms such as literal ore free translation! or faithful translation! are discarded by 4ida, in favour of two basic orientations or types of e/uivalence &formal and dynamic e/uivalence'. 'ormal e*ui#alen"e# 9ocuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. D nami" e*ui#alen"e# "s based in what that 4ida calls the principle of e/uivalent effect!, where the relationship between receptor and message should be the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message. The message has to be tailored to the receptor.s linguistic needs and cultural expectation and aims at complete naturalness &the closest natural e/uivalent to the source language message' of expression. 9or 4ida the success of the translation depends of# % Making sense ( 5onveying the spirit and manner of the original 0 Having a natural and easy form of expression A +roducing a similar response

Choms+ 5homsky.s generative transformational model analy*es sentences into series of related levels governed by rules. The structure relation is a universal feature of human language. The most basic of such structures are (ernel senten"es, which are simple, active, declarative sentences that re/uire the minimum of transformation. Bernel is to be obtained from the source language surface by a reductive process of back-transformation &4ida'. This involves analysis using generativeCtransformational grammar.s four types of functional class# - events - ob$ects - abstract - relational Bernels are the level at which the message is transferred into the receptor language before being transformed into the surface structure in 0 stages# literal transfer, minimal transfer and literary transfer. Ne/mar+ 4ewmark points out that the e/uivalent effect is illusory! and the gap between emphasis on source and the target language always remains as the overriding problem in translation studies. He suggests narrowing the gap replacing the old terms with those of semantic! and communicative! translation. 3emantic translation differs from literal in that it respects context while literal translation &word-for-word' even in its weaker form remains very closely to the 3T lexis and syntax. Thus the literal translation is not only the best, it is the only valid method in semantic and communicative translation. . (oller Boller examines more closely the concept of e/uivalence and its linked term correspondence# the correspondence is considered within the field of contrastive linguistics and its parameters are those of 3aussure.s langue, while e/uivalence relates to 3aussure.s parole. He describes five different types of e/uivalence# % )enotative e/uivalence ( 5onnotative e/uivalence 0 Text normative e/uivalence A +ragmatic e/uivalence &4ida dynamic e/uivalence' D 9ormal e/uivalence Chapter 0 The translation shift approach 3ince the %ED@s there has been a variety of linguistic approaches to the analysis of translation that have proposed detailed lists or taxonomies in an effort to categori*e the translation process. 1ina and Dar,elnet# they carried out a comparative stylistic analysis of 9rench and ;nglish. The two general translation strategies identified by =inay and )arbelnet are# dire"t translation and o,li*ue translation which hark back to literal vs. $ree. The two strategies include F procedures of which dire"t translation covers three# :orrowing 5al/ue 7iteral translation "n those cases where literal translation is not possible =inay and )arbelnet propose the strategy of obli/ue translation. The latter covers a further four procedures# Transposition Modulation ;/uivalence ,daptation. These seven procedures are operated on 0 levels# % The lexicon ( 3yntactic structures 0 The message

A list o$ $i#e steps that the translator has to use is2 % "dentify the units of translation ( ;xamine the source language text, evaluating the descriptive, affective and intellectual content of the units 0 -econstruct the metalinguistic context of the message A ;valuate the stylistic effects D +roduce and revise the target text Cat$ord2 He creates the term shift! in the area of translation. 5atford makes an important distinction between formal correspondence and textual e/uivalence. He considers two kind of shift# Shi$t o$ le#el# something which is expressed by grammar in one language and lexis in another. Most of 5atford.s analysis is given over the "ate-or shi$ts. These are subdivided into four kinds# structural shifts, class shifts, unit shifts and intra-system shifts'G Jir3 Le# &5*echoslovakia'# He gives an important attention to the expressive function or style of text. &,ttention to poetry' 1an Leu#en45/art2 His model is intended for the description of integral translation of fictional texts and comprises two different models# % 5omparative model# "nvolves a detailed comparison of 3T and TT and a classification of all the microstructural shifts. This model is as follows# 1. )ivision in comprehensible textual units called ransemes, i.e. she sat up /uickly! is classed as a transeme, as its corresponding 3panish se endere*H!. 2. define the !rchitranseme &core sense of the 3T transeme'. "n the above example the ,rchitranseme is to sit up!. 3. establish the relationship between the two transemes. ( )escriptive model# "s a macrostructural model, designed for the analysis of translated literature. "t is based on concepts borrowed from narratology and stylistics. Chapter 6 9unctional theories of translation Te7t T pes (atharina Reiss created 0 main kinds of categories which classify the texts# In$ormati#e, E7pressi#e &,esthetic', Operati#e &+ersuasive', there is also another fourth category# Audiomedial texts such as visual and spoken multimedia instruments. ;ach kind of text we know can be classify on a certain type of the 0 we have $ust talked about, for example a +oem is clearly an ;xpressive text while an ;lectoral 3peech is an 8perative one etcIsome texts can also be classified as hybrids of two categories, such as a 3ermon which is either "nformative and 8perative. Batharina -eiss suggests specific translation methods according to text type. ,s we have different kinds of texts we also have various ways to translate them from a 3T into a TT, it is clear that

The TT way The TT The TT among

of an "nformative Text should transmit all the information in a simple and clear of an ;xpressive Text should preserve the artistic form of the 3ource Text of an 8perative Text should try a good method to create an e/uivalent effect the Target Text readers

)uring the translation of these texts the translator must keep on mind that there is a wide range of elements which should be considered, these elements are Intralin-uisti" &lexis, grammarI' and E7tralin-uisti" &time, place, receiverI'. Translational A"tion The translational action is a model proposed by Hol84&anttari which has the aim of provides students, scholars and translators in general with a set of guidelines suitable for a wide range of situations. "nterlingual translation is described as translational action from a source text! and as a communicative process involving a series of roles and players#

The The The The The

initiator# the company or individual who needs the translation commissioner# who contact the translator 3T writer# who wrote the original text TT user# the person who will receive the TT text &libraries or shops' TT receiver# who finally read the book for personal interest or study

,s we have $ust told the Translational Model aim to create a TT which is suitable and clear for the TT reader, this kind of result is supposed to be achieved by adapting the text to the target context and not by totally following the 3T. ;ven if this model has taken account of the different important elements in translating a 3T it has the imperfection not to consider the great amount of cultural differences among cultures. The S+opos Theor The 3kopos Theory were introduced by Hans J. 1ermeer with the collaboration of Batharina -eiss, this theory predates the Manttari.s Translational ,ction model and can be considered to be part of this same theory. The theory is mainly based on ? basic rules#

1. , Translatum &or Target text' is determined by its 3kopos &or purpose' 2. , TT is an offer of information in a target culture and T7 concerning an offer of
information in a source culture and 37. ). , TT doesn.t initiate an offer of information in a clearly reversible way 4. , TT must be internally coherent 5. , TT must be internally coherent with the 3T 6. The five rules above are ordered hierarchically with the 3kopos rule predominating. "n this model, the 3T is dethroned and the translation is $udged not by e/uivalence of meaning but by its ade/uacy to the functional goal of the TT situation as defined by the commission... This theory has been discussed by some other theorists whose $udge the =ermeer.s Work as not-functional for the literary texts where there.s not a clear purpose and the structure is too complex to be adapted in a such simple way, in addition they note as the 3kopos theory doesn.t pay sufficient attention to the linguistic level of the 3T concentrating excessively on the purpose. Nord and the Translation4oriented te7t anal sis Christiane Nord presents a more detailed functional model incorporating elements of text analysis. The first distinction is between two basic types of translation product# do"umentar translation and instrumental translation. Do"umentar translation# "n this kind of translation the TT reader knows that the text he.s reading has been translated from another languageJculture, these are the cases of a text which the author wants to preserve as exotici*ing! or to maintain some cultural specific lexical items.

Instrumental translation# 5ontrary to the previous one, the instrumental translation let the reader know that the text has never been translated. "n addition the translator should try to turn the translation suitable for the target culture, context and time. "n her last book 5. 4ord proposes a more flexible version of the model where she highlights three aspects of functionalist approaches that are particularly useful in translator training#

the importance of the translation commission the role of 3T analysis the functional hierarchy of translation problems.

,naly*ing the text, the translator needs to compare the ( profiles in order to see where they may be different, the main features to pay attention to are# the text function, the sender and receiver, the target time and place, the way the text will be exposed &speech or writing' and the purpose for which the text was written and why needs to be translated. This model is thought to be applicable to all text types and translation situations but actually there are cases in which the use of a fixed model may create some problems Chapter 9 )iscourse and register analysis approaches 3ince the F@s up until to the E@s discourse analysis came to prominence in translation studies. :uilding on Hallida :s s stemi" $un"tional -rammar it has come to be used in translation analysis. There is a link with the text analysis model of Christiane Nord. However, while text analysis normally concentrates on describing the way in which texts are organi*ed &sentence structure, cohesion, etc.' discourse analysis looks at the way language communicates meaning and social and power relations. The model of discourse analysis that had the greatest influence is Hallidayan.s model of discourse analysis that is based on what he terms s stemi" $un"tional -rammar, is geared to the study of language as communication, seeing meaning in the writer.s linguistic choice systematically relating these choice to a winder so"io"ultural $rame/or+. "n this model there is a strong interrelation between the surface-level reali*ations of the linguistic functions and the sociocultural framework. 8-);-# 2enre &the conventional text type associated with a specific communicative function , for example a business letter' is conditioned by the sociocultural environment -egister &comprises three variable elements# field tenor and mode' )iscourse semantic &ideational, interpersonal, textual' 7exicogrammar & transitivity, modality, theme-rheme<cohesion' Halliday.s grammar is extremely complex House.s model of translation /uality assessment 8ne of the first work that use Hallidayan.s model. The model involves the systematic comparison of the textual profile of the source and target language. ,ccording to Juliane House the translation can be categori*ed into two types# o#ert and "o#ert translation. ,n overt translation is a TT that doesn.t purport to be an original. , covert translation is a translation which en$oys the status of an original source text in the target culture. The source language is not linked particularly to the source language culture or audienceG both source language and target language address their respective receivers directly. &ona ;a+er 3he does incorporate a comparison of nominali*ation and verbal forms in theme position in a scientific report in :ra*ilian, +ortuguese and ;nglish. He gives a number of examples from languages such as +ortuguese, 3panish and ,rabic. The most important point of 3T. Thematic

analysis is that translator should be aware of the relative markedness of the thematic and information structures. :aker considers various aspects of pra-mati"s in translation. Her definition of pragmatics is as follows# the study of language in use. "t.s the study of meaning manipulated by the participants in a communication situation!. 3he stresses the attention on coherence and cohesion in translation and gives more attention to implicature &what the speaker means rather than what he says'. Hatim and &ason &5amus and 7.entranger! passage' They pay extra attention to the reali*ation in translation of ideational and interpersonal $un"tions and incorporate into their model a semioti" le#el o$ dis"ourse. They consider shifts in modalit &the interpersonal function'. They also concentrate on identifying d nami" and sta,le elements on the text. These are linked with translation strategy. Works by both :aker and Hatim and Mason bring together a range of ideas from pragmatics and sociolinguistics that are relevant for translation and translation analysis. :aker.s analysis is particularly useful in focusing on the thematic and cohesion structures of a text. Hatim and Mason move behind House.s register analysis and begin to consider the way social and power relations are negotiated and communicated in translation. Chapter < 3ystem theories "n the %EF@s another reaction to the old static prescriptive models was pol s stem theor , which saw translated literature as a system operating in the larger social, literary and historical systems of the target culture. "t was an important move. !ol s stem theor was developed in the %EF@s by the "sraeli scholar Itamar E#en45ohar borrowing ideas from the -ussian formalists of the %E(@.s. 7iterary is thus part of the social cultural, literary and historical framework and the key concept is that of the s stem, in which there is an ongoing dynamic of mutation and struggle for the primary position in the literary canon. E#en45ohar focuses in the relations between all these systems in the overarching concept to which he gives a new term, the !ol s stem &5onglomerate of systems which interact to bring about an ongoing, dynamic process of evolution within the polysystem as a whole'. The dynamic process of evolution is vital to the polysystem, indicating that the relations between innovatory and conservative systems are in a constant state of flux and competition. Gideon Tour focuses on developing a general theory of translation. He goes on to propose $ust such a methodology for the branch of Des"ripti#e Translation Studies &)T3'. 9or Toury translations first and foremast occupy a position in the social and literary systems of the target culture, and thus position determines the translation strategies that are employed. The 0 phases methodology for )T3 of Toury are# % 3ituate the text within the target culture ( 5ompare stand target text for shifts 0 )raw implications for future translating The concept of norms &Toury' The translation of general values or ideas shared by a community into performance instructions appropriate for and applicable to particular situations. He considers translation to be an activity governed by norms and these norms determine the e*ui#alen"e mani$ested in a"tual translation. They appear to exert pressure and to perform some kind of prescriptive function#

The basic initial norm refers to a general choice made by the translators. When the translator sub$ect himself toward the 3T, the TT will be ade*uateG if the target culture norms prevail, then the TT will be a""epta,le. 8ther norms described by Toury are# % +reliminary 4orms &9actors which determines the selection of the text' ( 8perational 4orms &)escribe the presentation and linguistic matter of the target text' Toury also propose the 7aws of translation# % 7aw of growing standardi*ation ( 7aw of interference &a kind of default' Lam,ert and 1an Gorp &they are in contradiction with Toury and ;ven-Kohar' They accept that is impossible to summari*e all relationship involved in the activity of translation but suggest a systematic scheme that avoids superficial and intuitive commentaries and $udgements and convictions. Chapter = =arieties of cultural studies The move from translation as text to translation as culture and politics is what Mary 3nellHornby terms the "ultural turn!. "t is taken up by :assnett and 7efevere as a metaphor for the range of case studies in their collection. These include studies of changing standards in translation over time, the power exercised in and on the publish industry in pursuit of specific ideologies, feminist writing and translation, translation as appropriation, translation and coloni*ation, and translation as rewriting, including film rewriting. Three main areas have influenced translation studies on the course of %EE@s# translation as rewriting, translation and gender, translation and postcolonialism. Le$e#ere )escribes the literary system in which translation functions as being controlled by three main factors# pro$essionals within the literary system, patrona-e outside the literary system, the dominant poeti"s. The people involved in such power positions are the ones 7efevere sees as rewriting literature and governing its consumption by the general public. The motivation for such rewriting can be ideological or poetological. He claims that the same basic process of rewriting is a work in translation, historiography, onthologi*ation, criticism and editing!. Sherr Simon 3he approaches translation from a -ender studies angle. 3he sees a language of sexism in translation studies, with its image of dominance, fidelity, faithfulness and betrayal 3imon points out that the great classics of -ussian literature were initially made available in ;nglish in translations produced mainly by one woman &ex. )ostoevsky, Tolstoy'. The feminist theorists see a parallel between the status of translation, which is often considered derivative and inferior to original writing, and that of women, so often repressed in society and literature. 3herry 3imon gives examples of 5anadian feminist translator :arbara 2odard who seek to emphasi*e the feminine in the translation pro$ect. 3imon links, as well, gender and cultural studies to the developments in post"olonialism. 3he highlights Spi#a+.s concerns about the translation of the third world.s literature into ;nglish. 3pivak.s view is often expressed in translationese! which eliminates the identity of politically less powerful individuals and cultures. 3pivak.s criti/ue of western feminism and publishing is most biting when she suggests that feminists from the hegemonic countries should show solidarity with woman in postcolonial contexts by learning the language in which those women speak and write. ;ra8ilian "anni,alism

,nother important postcolonial movement in translation has come from :ra*il from the famous story of the ritual of cannibali*ation of +ortuguese bishop by native :ra*ilian. "t.s based on the metaphor of anthropophagy or cannibalism with the ,ndrade.s "anifesto !ntropofago!. The metaphor has been used by the strong :ra*ilian translation studies community to stand for the experience of coloni*ation and translation. 5oloni*ers and their language are devoured, their life force invigorating the devourers but in a new purified and energi*ed form that is appropriate to the needs of the native peoples. "t.s important to be aware that postcolonial writings on translation have found their echo in ;urope, especially in the "rish context. The Irish "onte7t &by 5ronin' 5ronin himself concentrate on the role of translation in the linguistic and political battle between the "rish and ;nglish languages, examining how "rish translators have discussed and presented their work in preface, commentaries and other writings. He uses the metaphor of Translation to draw a parallel with what was happening physically to the "rish &translation at a cultural level' Chapter > Translating the foreign# the &in'visibility of translation 1enuti2 Domesti"ation and 'orei-ni8ation La/ren"e 1enuti is a cultural theorist who influenced the nature of the translation. "n particular he focused his attention on what he calls In#isi,ilit o$ the translator!. 7ike other cultural theorists =enuti insists that the aim of translation studies must take account of the nature of the sociocultural framework. He contests the Toury.s scientific! descriptive model that produces value-free! norms and laws of translation. =enuti argued that in ,nglo-,merican culture the translators tend to translate the texts in a fluent! way in order to make an easy-readable Target Text and giving the text an illusion of transparency, this kind of behaviour ,nevertheless, hide the original nature of foreign text deleting sometimes important elements. 9urthermore =enuti described two different methods to translate a text# Domesti"ation# "n this method the translator is hidden, the text is adapted to the target culture minimi*ing the foreignness of the original text. The final result is a fluent text which gives the reader the illusion that the text has been originally written in his language. 'orei-ni8ation# "s the =enuti.s favourite way to work on a foreign text, in this case the translator tries to convey the TT reader all the impressions, the forms and the contents the writer wanted to communicate. This method brings out the work of the translator whose strategies are centred create a text which respects the original idea of the text even in a target language. )espite his preference to the foreigni*ation, =enuti highlight that the first method as the second one are not perfect models and that they were created to promote research in translation field. Antoine ;erman :erman.s works precedes and influence =enuti.s theories. :erman describes the translation as an Lpreuve!, a trial. :erman deplores the general tendency to negate the foreign in translation by the translation strategy of naturali*ation &the same of =enuti.s later domestication'. He identifies twelve deforming tendencies!. His examination of the forms of deformation is termed ?ne-ati#e anal ti"@. %. rationali*ation (. clarification 0. expansion

A. ennoblement 5. /ualitative impoverishment 6. /uantitative impoverishment F. the destruction of rhythms M. the destruction of underlying networks of signification E. the destruction of linguistic patternings %@. the destruction of vernacular networks or their exotici*ation %%. the destruction of expressions and idioms %(. the effacement of the superimposition of languages The pu,lishin- industr =enuti describes how the publishers tend to hide and influence the work of the translator, as the market re/uires fluent target textsG the publishers drive the translator to a more domesticating translation. ,nother power element =enuti points out is the literary agent, the agents represent the writers and take a percentage of their profits, they help the translator offering to him the possibility to be published in other countries, but the more re/uested books are the ones which are easily assimilated in the target culture, so again the translation is modified. =enuti speaks against the ,nglo-,merican publishing, defining it as ethnocentric monolingual people who refuse the foreignness to aggressively preserve their own culture The re"eption and re#ie/in- o$ translations The best way, in =enuti and Meg :rown opinion, to examine the reception of a translation is analy*ing the reviews of a translated text. ,s =enuti noted the translation notes are the first overlooked when cuts are re/uested, the whole text is often considered by the review writers as a text written in their language completely leaving out the translator.s work. 3ometimes some ,nglo-,merican review writers talk about a TT as if the text were been written by an ;nglish author, making comparisons with other ,nglo-,merican texts. 3ometimes the writers of the reviews talk about the translation, $udging it as inappropriate or less fluent often without having any knowledge in the field. Chapter 1A +hilosophical theories of translation 8ver the second half of the twentieth century we see an inter-attraction of translation and philosophy. The hermeneutic movement owes its origins to the German Romanti"s such as Shleierma"her, and, in the twentieth century, to Heide--er. Geor-e Steiner.s ,fter :abel! is the key advance of the hermeneutics in translation. 3teiner defines the Hermeneutic ,pproach as investigation of what it means to understand a piece of oral or written speech and diagnose the process!. This investigation consists of A parts# % iniati#e trust &The translator.s first move is a belief and trust that there is something in the source language that can be understood'G ( a--ression &"t.s an invasive move. The translator invades, extracts and brings home'G 0 in"orporation &"mporting of the meaning of the foreign text can potentially dislocate or relocate the whole of the native structure'. The target culture either ingests and becomes enriched by the foreign text, or it is infected by it and ultimately re$ects it A "ompensation &The meaning of source language leaves the original with a dialectically enigmatic residue'. )ialectic because there has been a lost for the 3T, while the residue is seen as a positive enhancement produced by the act of translation. E8ra !ound.s work was very much influenced by his reading of the literature of the past, including 2reek and 7atin. "n his translations, he sought to escape from the rigid strait$acket of the =ictorian<;dwardian ;nglish tradition by experimenting with an archaic style which =enuti link to his own foreigni*ing strategy. He emphasi8e /ith his translation and "riti"ism the /a that lan-ua-e "an ener-i8e a te7t in translation.

;enBamin Walter :en$amin.s %E(0 essay, translated into ;nglish as The task of the translator! was originally an introduction to his own 2erman translation of :audelaire.s Tableaux +arisiens!. 5entral to :en$amin.s paper is the notion that a translation does not exist to give an understanding of the meaning or information content of the original, but also giving the original a sort of continued life. "n this expansive and creative way translation provide the creation of a +ure and higher language!. De"onstru"tion# the movement owes its origins to the %E?@s in 9rance and its leading figure is the 9rench philosopher Ja*ues Derrida. The terminology employed by )errida is complex and shifting, like the meaning it dismantles. The term ?di$$Cran"e@ is perhaps the most significantG it plays on the two meanings of the verb di$$Crer &de$er and di$$er', neither of which encompasses its meaning. )econstruction begins to dismantle some of the key premisses of linguistics, starting with 3aussure.s clear division of signified and signifier and the stability of linguistic sign. )iffLrance suggests a location at some uncertain point in space and time between differ and defer. )errida redefines :en$amin.s pure language as diffLrance and deconstruct the distinction between source and target text because the original and translation owe a debt to each other. Chapter 11 Translation studies as an interdiscipline Interdis"ipline challenges the current conventional way of thinking by promoting and responding to new links between different types of knowledge and technologies. :ut the relation between translation studies and other discipline is not fixed. "n her book Translation studies# ,n "ntegrated ,pproach! Mary 3nell Horby attempts to integrate a wide variety of different linguistic and literary concepts in an overarching and integrated approach. "n more recent years, translation studies have gone beyond purely linguistic approaches to develop its own models, such as Toury.s descriptive translation studies. Much research in translation studies makes use of techni/ues and concepts from a range of background , combination of linguistics analysis and critical theory has been made by (eith Har#e that with his Theor o$ "onta"t examines the way gay man and lesbian work within appropriate prevailing straight and homophobic discourse from a range of communities. The new studies such as Har#e :s, represents an important step and produces very interesting results by combining a lin-uisti" tool+it and a cultural studies approach. 9or the moment the kinds of interdisciplinary approach seem to be one way of bridging the gap between linguistics and cultural studies. The role o$ "han-in- te"hnolo-ies The tools at the disposal of the translator and the theorist are altering. 8ne of the reasons for this is the growth in the new technologies, which inevitably determine new areas of study. 5orpus linguistics already facilitates the study of features of translated language. The availability and exchange of information facilitate communication among scholars. 9inally the internet is also changing the status and visibility of translators. ,t present, however, application to the practice of translation remains somewhat problematic

SYNOPSIS OF THE BOOK Trainee translators have available to them a wealth of literature to help them consi er these matters! but this material varies in "ualit#! uses a wi e ran$e of ifferent terminolo$#! has ifferin$ priorities! an is often har to fin %

&un a#'s boo( is an intro uctor# $ui e to this literature! aime primaril# at stu ents stu #in$ translation theor# as part of a practical course in translation% Pp% )*+), $ive an outline of the ifferent chapters of the boo(! which I have rawn on in the summar# that follows% The first chapter $ives an overview of the fiel ! base lar$el# on Holmes -).//012223% 4hapter 1 5Translation theor# before the twentieth centur#5! concentrates on 4icero! St% 6erome! 7uther! 8r# en an Schleiermacher% The ne9t four chapters eal with what &un a# calls 5lin$uistic+ oriente theories5% 4hapter : 5E"uivalence an e"uivalent effect5 loo(s at Ni a's istinction between 5formal e"uivalence5 an 5 #namic e"uivalence5! as well as the semantic framewor( propose in Ni a ; Taber -).,.3% <e are also intro uce to the istinction between semantic an communicative translation put forwar b# Newmar( -).//3! an the anal#sis of ifferent t#pes of e"uivalence in Koller -).=.0/.3% -Semantic translation sta#s closer to the ori$inal te9t! an is recommen e when the istinctive st#le of the ori$inal author is thou$ht to be worth preservin$% It ma# involve unusual forms of e9pression in the tar$et te9t% 4ommunicative translation can epart further from the ori$inal! an the result ma# loo( no ifferent from an# non+translate te9t in the tar$et lan$ua$e% Serious wor(s of literature where the author has a notable personal st#le ma# be translate semanticall#> 5popular5 fiction is more li(el# to be translate communicativel#3% 4hapter ? 5The translation shift approach5 focuses on attempts to classif# the lin$uistic chan$es or 5shifts5 that translators ma(e! inclu in$ the wor( of @ina# ; 8arbelnet -).*/! )..*3! 4atfor -).,*3 an 7euven+Awart -)./.! )..23% 4hapter * 5Functional theories of translation5 outlines te9t+t#pe an s(opos theories -Beiss )./)01222> @ermeer )./.012223! an Nor 's te9t+lin$uistic approach -Nor ).//> )..)3% -5S(opos5! the Cree( wor for 5aim5 or 5purpose5! is use for the purpose of a translation an of the action of translatin$! an ta(es into account how the translation is commissione 3% In 4hapter , 58iscourse an re$ister anal#sis approaches5! &un a# summarises the wor( of House -)..=3 on translation "ualit#! as well as the iscourse+ oriente wor( of Ba(er -)..)3 an Hatim an &ason -)..23! who raw on Halli a#'s s#stemic+functional lin$uistics% The remain er of the boo( is evote to 5cultural stu ies5 approaches to translation% 4hapter = 5S#stems theories5 iscusses the place of translate literature within the cultural an literar# s#stem of the tar$et lan$ua$e -T73! followin$ Even+Aohar -).=)012223% Tour#'s 5 escriptive translation stu ies -)..*3! which $rew out of this wor(! is then outline ! hi$hli$htin$ Tour#'s notion of translation norms! an his proposal that translate te9ts ten to have specific characteristics such as $reater stan ar isation an less variation in st#le than their source te9ts% -Translation norms are sociocultural constraints which affect the wa# that translation is viewe an carrie out in ifferent cultures! societies an times3% This chapter then summarises the evelopment of this wor( b# 4hesterman -)..=3! an loo(s briefl# at the &anipulation School -Hermans )./*3% 4hapter / 5@arieties of cultural stu ies5 e9amines 7efevere -)..13! who treats translation as 5rewritin$5 an i entifies i eolo$ical pressures on translate te9ts% This chapter also loo(s at the writin$ of Simon -)..,3 on $en er in translation! an at postcolonial translation theories which stress the part that translation has pla#e in the colonisation process an the ima$e of the colonise -cf% Bassnett an Trive i )...3% 4hapter . 5Translatin$ the forei$nD the -in3visibilit# of translation5

follows Berman -)./*012223 an @enuti -)..*3 in anal#sin$ the forei$n element in translation an e9plorin$ the contention that translation is often consi ere a erivative an secon +rate activit#! an that the most common metho of literar# translation is to 5naturalise5 the te9t so that it ma(es for comfortable rea in$ in the tar$et lan$ua$e% &un a# ar$ues that this metho shoul not be ta(en for $rante % In 4hapter )2 5Philosophical theories of translation5 the boo( intro uces a selection of philosophical issues concerne with lan$ua$e an translation! inclu in$ Steiner's -)../3 5hermeneutic motion5 an 8erri a -)..*3 an econstructionism% Finall# chapter )) 5Translation stu ies as an inter iscipline5 starts from Snell+Hornb# -)..*3 an loo(s at recent wor( that tries to inte$rate the lin$uistic an cultural approaches% The author also iscusses the relationship between the internet an translation% Each chapter containsD + one or more case stu ies which appl# the concepts of that chapter to a particular te9t% + a set of 5 iscussion an research points5 as activities for stu ents% + a list of (e# concepts an (e# literature at the be$innin$% + a summar# at the en % E@E7FETION In m# opinion! this boo( is a brave an lar$el# successful attempt to s#nthesise a wi e ran$e of isparate material% &ost of the important contributions to translation stu ies are represente here! thou$h the boo( leaves out some wor( that perhaps shoul have been inclu e % To mention three in particularD man# people thin( that Cutt -)..)012223 is an important an ori$inal stu #! which sa#s useful thin$s about ifferent t#pes of translation an which is lin(e to a specific lin$uistic framewor(! relevance theor#% Cutt is mentione briefl# in passin$! but with no attempt to iscuss his i eas in etail% Secon l#! there is an interestin$ line of research! mostl# in French! which evelops some i eas of @ina# ; 8arbelnet -).*/3% &un a# limits his iscussion of @ina# ; 8arbelnet to their classification of translation shifts! i$norin$ the bul( of their boo( which proposes that there are un erl#in$ ifferences between French an En$lish te9tual practices% Other writers on translation who have pursue this i ea inclu e Cuillemin+Flescher -)./)3! Ballar -)..*! )../3! @an Hoof -)./.3 an 8elisle -)..*3 -althou$h 8elisle's earlier wor( on iscourse anal#sis -)./13 is allu e to! I thin( that his later wor( is more important in a boo( li(e this3% E thir bo # of wor( un er+reporte here is that of Peter Newmar(! who has sai man# profoun thin$s about translation% Stu ents shoul be ma e aware of his recent collections of provocative insi$hts -)..:! )../3! not least because the# are more rea able than most writin$ about translation% I accept that Newmar( is har to summarise! but he has much more to offer than Gust the istinction between semantic an communicative translation outline in chapter : + which in an# case is refine an elaborate in his more recent boo(s% Es a te9tboo( this volume is a mirabl# esi$ne ! an its wea(nesses mostl# stem from the fiel that it covers an are not the fault of the writer% &un a# criticises much of the wor( he outlines in the earlier chapters because it relies on notions such as 5e"uivalent communicative effect5 which are slipper# an ver# har to efine> or because the principles iscusse in these chapters sometimes o not ta(e into account ifferent t#pes of te9t -translatin$ a poem is ifferent in man# wa#s from translatin$ a software manual3% But at no

point in the boo( oes he mention an# wor( which tries to efine 5e"uivalent communicative effect5 precisel# -perhaps there is none worth mentionin$3! an his section on te9t+t#pes in chapter * is ver# brief + in ee ! it "uestions 5whether te9t t#pes can reall# be ifferentiate 5 -p% =,3% This is too ismissiveD translators have to operate with some notion of the t#pe of te9t which the# are about to translate! so a principle attempt to classif# te9ts in a translationall#+relevant wa# can help them o this in a more informe wa#% <hat's more! man# of the contributions which are iscusse in the chapters on 5cultural stu ies approaches5 focus e9clusivel# on literar# translation + a 5te9t+t#pe5 limitation if ever there was one% On the other han ! as a lin$uist who is sceptical about cultural stu ies I was please to fin some of the topics covere in these chapters $enuinel# enli$htenin$% Shoul serious literature be translate in a wa# which loses its forei$n flavour! or shoul rea ers of translate literature be encoura$e to rea versions which are not 5naturalise 5! even thou$h the# will be more ifficultH &# son! a literature stu ent! has recentl# rea En$lish translations of novels b# BalIac! Kaf(a! &ar"ueI an Crass! tr#in$ to remember each time that the version he was rea in$ was not as efinitive as the ori$inal% &a#be publishe translations of novels ou$ht to come with a health warnin$! in icatin$ the approach to translation that was a opte % The boo( covers a wi e area! an some topics are onl# s(etche rapi l#% The wor( of Ni a in chapter :! an the iscourse+base approaches in chapter ,! will be har for some stu ents to $rasp for this reason% On the other han ! &un a# ma(es $reat efforts to encoura$e further rea in$ of the ori$inal sources! $ivin$ references which are "uite eas# to access% Es a surve# of some of the basic material in translation stu ies this boo( is $enerall# e9cellent! an I thin( that stu ents an teachers of translation will welcome it with enthusiasm%