Introduction

Starting from the conviction that translators are made not

only born (E. Nida), the present coursebook means to introduce
our students to certain aspects of the theory and practice of
translation, however, without pretension to an exhaustive coverage
of this subject.
After trying to provide a fairly satisfactory definition of some
of the basic terms with which Translation Studies operate
translation (process and result), translator (as bilingual mediator) and
translation theorythe present course focuses then on a wide range
of issues, such as: types of translation (from the literary to the free
translation), decoding and re-encoding processes, equivalence and
the loss and gain principle, various stages of the translation
processlexical, grammatical and stylistic analysis of the SL text,
drafts and versions, etc.
Since we strongly believe that only a synchronic presentation
of these issues would certainly not suffice to attain an all-embracing
view of the subject, as a next step, following the theoretical and
descriptive perspective on the translation process, we set before
ourselves the task of providing the student with a historical survey of
the more important translation theories, from Roman times to the
end of the twentieth century, along with the latest developments in
this field of activity.

1. Defining Basic Terminology

The growth of Translation Studies as a separate discipline started
practically in the 1980-s, more exactly in 1978, when in an Appendix
to the collected papers of the 1976 Louvain Colloquium on
Literature and Translation, Andr Lefevere suggested that the name
Translation Studies should be adopted for the discipline that
concerns itself with the problems raised by the production and
description of translation.
Although translation has been considered by most theorists in
the field of linguistics as probably the most complex event ever
produced in the history of mankind, it has often been underrated,
for the simple fact that very many people still believe that anybody
with a good command of a foreign language must automatically be
very good at translating from and into that particular language,
which, in fact, practice has proved wrong in time.
Moreover, translation was for a long time regarded as a subsection of Comparative Literature, but the current perspective
reverses this assessment and proposes instead that Comparative
Literature be considered a branch of the much wider discipline,
namely Translation Studies, which brings together work in a
variety of fields including: linguistics, literary study, history and cultural
history, philosophy, psychology, and anthropology. Translation Studies has
grown into a discipline of its own, neither a minor branch of
Comparative Literary Study nor merely a specific area of Linguistics,
but a complex field with many far-reaching ramifications.
At least, of two things we are definitely certain that:
I. documentary evidence of translation may be traced back for
at least 5000 years.
[A brief historic outline of translation in the Western world:
the first traces of translation date from 3000 BC, during
the Egyptian Old Kingdom, in the area of the First
2

Cataract, Elephantine, where inscriptions in two languages

have been found;
written texts of bilingual treatises between the Hittites and
Egypt; the Egyptian Pharaohs employed translators and
interpreters whose skill was handed down from generation
to generation;
the first European translator ever mentioned by literary
histories was Livius Andronicus who about 240 B.C.
translated the Odyssey into Latin, followed by other poets
and translators: Naevius, Ennius, Catullus, etc.;
in the 12th century the West came into contact with Islam
in Moorish Spain. Owing to two essential conditionsa
qualitative difference in culture (the West was inferior but
scientifically acquisitive and receptive to new ideas) and the
continuous contact between two languageslarge-scale
translation was favored mostly after the collapse of
Moorish supremacy in Spain: the Toledo school of
translators translated Arabic versions of Greek scientific
and philosophic classics;
Luthers Bible translation in 1522 laid the foundations of
the modern German Bible inasmuch as the King James
Bible of 1611 exerted a seminal influence on English
language and literature;
other significant periods of translation were that of
Shakespeare, of French classicism and the Romantic
Movements.

In the pre-linguistics period of translation, the actual translation

process was mainly discussed in terms of (a) the conflict
between free and literal translation, and (b) the
contradiction between possibility (absolute necessity) and
impossibility of translation.
Cicero (55/46 BC) was the first to enunciate the
preeminence of the sense-for-sense translation and hence
3

that the translator must be either an interpreter or a

rhetorician;
the classical essays of St. Jerome (400 A.D.), Martin Luther
(1530), John Dryden (1684) all favor colloquial and natural
renderings;
then Alexander Fraser Tytler wrote the first significant
book on translation in 1790, stating that a good
translation is one in which the merit of the original work is
so completely transfused into another language as to be as
distinctly apprehended and as strongly felt by a native of
the country to which that language belongs as it is by those
who speak the language of the original work;
the nineteenth-century essays by Goethe (1813-14),
Humboldt (1816), Novalis (1796), Schleiermacher (1813)
Schopenhauer (1851) and Nietzsche (1882) inclined
towards more literal translation methods, while Matthew
Arnold favored a simple, direct, and noble style;
in the twentieth century, Benedetto Croce (1922), Ortega y
Gasset (1937) and Paul Valry questioned the possibility of
adequate translation, particularly of poetry. ] 1
II. international communication depended heavily, and still
does, on translation.
[Georges Mounin in Linguistique et Traduction (1976) states that, so
far, research in ethnology has not been able to name a people or an
ethnic group which should not have resorted to interpreting by
means of a bilingual speaker, whenever contact with another people
or another ethnic group was needed.]
Whereas in the nineteenth century translation and the attempts
at theorizing were mainly a one-way means of communication
between prominent men of letters, in the twentieth century, the new
developments in the field of linguistics, sociolinguistics,
sociosemantics, semiotics, literary and non-literary criticism have
See Peter Newmark, Approaches to Translation. (Hemel Hempstead: Phoenix ELT,
1988), pp. 3-4.
4

turned translation into the object of interest of philosophers and

scientists alike. Moreover, the setting up of new international bodies,
the constitution of new independent states, the formation of new
multinational companies, gave translation enhanced political
importance. The boom in technology, the necessity of bringing it to
developing countries, all in all, the expansion of world
communication has brought about a change in what regards the
status of translation, both in terms of increased qualitative
requirements set before the product and of efficiency of the
translation methods employed. Thus, for example, UNESCO, which
up to 1970 published an Index translationum, recorded a 4.5-fold
increase since 1948, with translations into German nearly twice as
many as into Russian, the second most numerous. The EU now
employs armies of translators and international writers, in this age
of international culture and world-literature, sell more widely in
translation than in the original, whilst smaller European countries
depend for a living on the translation of their works as well as their
own translations. 2
As to the history (or rather the evolution) of the term the
following must be said: translation as a translinguistic activity
seems to have been suggested first by early Italian Humanists, when
they introduced the term traducere to replace a variety of already
existing terms.
But before this moment, translation was a considered a
transtextual operation and a variety of separate terms had been
used in Greek and Roman antiquity and during the Middle Ages:
e.g. the Greek hermeneuein = means both to explain and to
translate while the Latin interpres = refers both to the
translator and the exegete.
Moreover, the Romans had many expressions to designate poetic
and literary translation: verto, converto, transverto, imitari, explicare,
exprimere, reddere and later translatare.

Ibid., pp. 3-4.

5

For the Middle Ages, translation was multidimensional, in

other words, we have a great deal of literature covering the space
between discourse and commentary, as during the Middle Ages, the
boundary between ones own words and those of another was
fragile, equivocal, often purposely ambiguous (the fashion to imitate
and borrow ideas and themes). In the Middle Ages, too, the
distinctions between writing and glossing are continually blurred.
The procedures and the modus operandi (practice) of
translation were variable, according to the prestige of the source
language (high or low languages/prestige and non-prestige
languages) and the cultural level of the text (religious, didactic,
poetic, and historical, etc). The terms reflecting this diversity in
Italian were: volgarizzare, transporre, and in French: espondre, translater,
turner, mettre en romanz, enromanchier. 3
Finally, the term traducere was introduced by Leonardo
Bruni in 1420 (De interptretatione recta) and, thus, an end was put to
this diversity of terms.
After this more or less brief introduction, three basic
questions arise:
What is translation, art or science?
What is a translator?
What is translation theory?
Translation is a broad, ambiguous notion, which can be
understood in many different ways. For example, one may talk of
translation as a process or a product, and identify a series of subtypes, like: literary translation, technical translation, subtitling,
interpreting, machine translation, etc. In fact, translation has been
compared to playing a game or to charting a map, in other words,
many formal definitions have been offeredeither linguistically or
Gianfranco Folena, Volgarizzare e tradurre: idea e terminologia della
traduzione dal Medio Evo italiano e romanzo allumanesimo europeo in La
Traduzione. Saggi e studi. (Trieste: Edizioni LINT, 1973), p. 65.
6

stylisticallywith the intention to capture one or the other particular

facet of translation. Not surprisingly, each definition reflects a
particular underlying theoretical model.
Essentially, the translation process is one in which a person
who knows both the Source Language and the Target/Receptor
Language decodes the message from the SL and encodes into the
TL via linguistic equivalence, or as Dubois (1973) said: the
expression in another language (or target language) of what has been
expressed in another, source language, preserving semantic and
stylistic equivalence. 4
To put it in other words, translation involves the rendering of
a SL text into the TL so as to ensure that the surface meaning of the
two will be approximately similar and the structures of the SL will be
preserved as closely as possible but not so closely that the TL
structures will be seriously distorted. 5 So, three facts are pointed
out here:
through translation, the message (the meaning) must remain
approximately unaltered in the TL;
the SL structures (style) must be preserved as far as it is
possible in the TL.
but since the 2 languages are not identical and in most cases
differ in terms of grammatical and lexical structures, the latter
may not be preserved accordingly and entirely in the TL.
Here are other definitions illustrating both the linguistic and
the stylistic approach:
1. G. Oettingera static definition which does not mention
important factors, like text and receiver: the process of
transforming signs or representations into other signs or
representations. If the originals have some significance, we
Apud Roger T. Bell, Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. (Harlow:
Longman, 1991), p. 5.
5 Susan Bassnett, Translation Studies. (London and New York: Routledge, 1991), p.
2.
7
4

2.
3.

4.
5.

generally require that the images have the same significance,

or, more realistically, as nearly the same significance as we can
get. Interlingual translation can be defined as the
replacement of elements of one language, the domain of
translation, by equivalent elements of another language,
the range. 6
J. C. Catford: the replacement of textual material in one
language by equivalent textual material in another language. 7
Hartmann and Storck: the replacement of a representation
of a text in one language by a representation of an equivalent
text in a second language. 8
Boguslaw Lawendowski: the transfer of meaning from
one set of language signs to another set of language signs. 9
Nida and Taber: reproducing in the receptor language the
closest natural equivalent to the message of the source
language, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of
style. 10 [This latter definition, introducing the idea of closest
natural equivalent, implies the idea of PARAPHRASE,
which John Dryden had favored as the most appropriate
method of translating as early as 1680: translation with
latitude, where the author is kept in view by the translator,
so as never to be lost, but his words are not so strictly
followed as his sense.]

Despite the form differences, there are certain common

features shared by all these definitions:
Apud Werner Koller, Einfhrung in die bersetzungswissenschaft. (HeidelbergWiesbaden: Quelle & Meyer, 1992), p. 90.
7 J. C. Catford, A Linguistic Theory of Translation. An Essay in Applied Linguistics.
(London: Oxford University Press, 1965), p. 20.
8 Apud Roger T. Bell, Translation and op. cit., p. 22.
9 Boguslaw P. Lawendowski, On Semiotic Aspects of Translation in Thomas A.
Sebeok (ed.), Sight, Sound and Sense. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978),
p. 267.
10 Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation.
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969/1982), p. 12.
8
6

the idea of transfer, of movement between the SL and the TL;

the necessity to find the closest possible equivalent;
the preservation as much as possible of the features of the
original text.
Moreover, they all highlight EQUIVALENCE, which occurs
in various degreesranging from full to partial equivalence
according to the different semantic, grammatical, and lexical levels of
the context, but never reaching a total equivalence, as the ideal
does not exist because languages differ from one another. Every
single language has its own distinct codes and rules according to
which it functions, that regulate the construction of the grammatical
and stylistic structures. Thus, the transfer of a message from one
language to another means a movement from a set of given wellestablished structures to another set of given and established
structures. Hence, an alteration of form is produced and, obviously,
during this transfer something gets lost and something is gained.
As Roger T. Bell points it out, the translator is always faced
with the option of either finding formal equivalents, which
preserve the context free-semantic sense at the expense of the
context-communicative value, or the functional equivalents, which
preserve the context-communicative value at the expense of the
context free-semantic sense, or, to put it in other words, what Cicero
in the year 55/46 B.C. had stated as the principle of translation:
non verbum de verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu (a sense-for-sense,
not a word-for-word translation). Finally, what counts is the
PURPOSE (the function) for which a translation is made: to
convey the message accurately from the SL to the TL. 11
Another important issue, which arises in the debate and which
has always dominated the study of translation, is the dichotomy
whether translation is art or science. A linguist will obviously
and inevitably approach translation from a scientific point of view
and would try to describe the phenomenon objectively. On the
other hand, a poet and a stylist will approach it from the artistic
11

See Roger T. Bell, Translation and op.cit., p. 7.

9

point of view and tend to describe it subjectively. In time, the

dichotomy was enlarged to a trichotomy, when it was argued that
translation is an art or a craft and, therefore, not easy to submit
to objective, scientific description. But craft would imply a slightly
lower status than art and would suggest certain amateurishness,
whereas science could hint at a mechanistic approach, totally
omitting the fact that translation is a creative process.
Hillaire Belloc, in his lecture On Translation (1931) summed up
the status of translation, but, unfortunately, to a certain extent his
words are still valid today:
The art of translation is a subsidiary art and derivative. On
this account it has never been granted the dignity of original work
and has suffered too much in the general judgment of letters. This
natural underestimation of its value has had the bad practical
effect of lowering the standard demanded, and in some periods
has almost destroyed the art altogether. The corresponding
misunderstanding of its character has added to its degradation:
neither its importance not its difficulty has been grasped. 12

The highlighted idea is that translation has for a long time been
perceived as a secondary activitya mechanical onea low status
occupation, always overshadowed by the original, creative process.
Nowadays, however, due to an ever-increasing post-war
reconsideration, translation has reached its own status versus the
original, a status which Ortega y Gasset had already anticipated more
than half a century ago: The translation is not the original, but the
path to the original, or as the leading Polish theoretician Zenon
Klemensiewicz pointed it out, the translation is neither a
reproduction of the original nor an alteration of the elements and
structures of the original. The translators task is, then, to grasp
their functions (of the original structures) and make use of the
elements and structures of his own language in order to
achieve, as much as possible, the same functional effect. 13
Apud Susan Bassnett, Translation op.cit., p. 2.
See Ji Lev, Die literarische bersetzung: Theorie einer Kunstgattung. (Frankfurt am
Main-Bonn: Athenum Verlag, 1969), pp. 21-22.
10
12
13

So, we believe that a satisfactory answer to the trichotomy,

whether translation is art, science, or craft, would be rather a
combination, a fusion of the three, or as Peter Newmark puts it:
Translation has its own excitement, its own interest. A
satisfactory translation is always possible, but a good translator is
never satisfied with it. It can usually be improved. There is no
such thing as a perfect, ideal or correct translation. A translator is
always trying to extend his knowledge and improve his means of
expression; he is always running facts and words. He works on
four levels: translation is first a science, which entails the
knowledge and verification of the facts and the language that
describes them . . . secondly, it is a skill, which calls for
appropriate language and acceptable usage; thirdly, an art, which
distinguishes good from undistinguished writing and is the
creative, the intuitive, sometimes the inspired level of the
translation; lastly, a matter of taste, where argument ceases,
preferences are expressed, and the variety of meritorious
translations is the reflection of individual differences. 14

There is one more aspect that has to be taken into

consideration, namely the ambiguitythe two meaningsof the
term translation, which designs both process and product. In this
respect, to the above-given definitions of the process of translation
an alternative definition should be added, provided by Meetham and
Hudson and which brings into discussion the two aspects of the
meaning, i.e. process and product. Translation is the process or
result of converting information from one language or language
variety into another. 15
So, it means that:
- the aim is to reproduce as accurately as possible all grammatical
and lexical features of the SL text;
- the method is to find equivalents in the TL, and

Peter Newmark, A Textbook of Translation. (Hemel Hempstead: Phoenix ELT,

1995), p. 6.
15 Meetham and Hudson, apud Roger T. Bell, Translation and op.cit., p. 13.
11
14

the major requirement is that all factual information contained

in the original text must be retained in the translation.
In fact, translation has three meanings and we can envisage
three possible theories depending on the focus of the investigation.
One is process-oriented, denoting the process. (It is a theory of
translating which requires a study of information processing.
Being based heavily on psychology and psycholinguistics, it deals
with topics like: perception, meaning, encoding and decoding of
messages, etc.)
The other is product-oriented and denotes the product. (It is a
theory of translated texts which requires a study of texts by
means of linguistic analysis and stylistics and which makes
use of the recent advances in text-linguistics and discourse
analysis.)
The third denotes the abstract concept, referring to both the
activity and the entity. (This abstract concept becomes the
main object of interest of the general theory of translation,
which must attempt to describe and explain both the process
and the product. The process is both mental and physical. It is
mental as it takes place in the mind of the translator, and it is
physical as it involves language, the transfer of the SL text into
the TL text within a broader cultural context.)
The present situation, however, as Roger T. Bell sees it, is
one in which translation theory has, for the most part, concentrated
on the product to the exclusion of the process and has adopted a
normative attitude to it by making inferences back to it through the
description and evaluation of the product. 16
Since 1965, great progress has been made in Translation
Studies. The work of scholars in the Netherlands, Israel, the former
Czechoslovakia, the former Soviet Union, the former GDR, and the
United States has brought about clearly defined Schools of
Translation. On the other hand, Translation Studies has been
exploring new ground, bridging the gap between stylistics, literary
16

Roger T. Bell, Translation and op.cit., p. 13.

12

history, linguistics, semiotics, and aesthetics. When Andr Lefevere

tried to define the goal of Translation Studies, he suggested that its
purpose was to produce a comprehensive theory which can also
be used as a guideline for the production of translations. The
need for systemic study of translation arises directly from the
problems encountered during the actual translation process and it is
essential for those working in the field to bring their practical
experience to theoretical discussion.
The next major issue would be the attempt to define the
TRANSLATOR and then analyze the relationship translator
communicator. If the starting point, in this sense, were Ji Levs
statement that an act of translation is an act of communication
(bersetzen ist Mitteilen) 17 , the totally justified question might arise:
To what extent is then communication an act of translation?
It is generally accepted that all communicators and
translators as receivers, be they listeners or readers, monolinguals
or bilinguals, are faced with the same problem, that of reception of
signals, the message being encoded into the signs of a certain
communication system which is different from their own, due to the
dual structure of discourse, i.e. the uniqueness of every individual
and the element of privacy in language. We speak in order to
communicate but also to conceal, to leave unspoken, or as Ortega y
Gasset wrote, Al conversar vivimos en sociedad, al pensar nos quedamos
solos. This means that, in broad lines, during RECEPTION (both in
communication and translation), a de-construction followed by a reconstruction occurs, namely a decoding-encoding process takes
place.
George Steiner synthesizes the whole problem when he states:
Any model of communication is at the same time a model of
translation, of a vertical or horizontal transfer of significance. No
two historical epochs, no two social classes, no two localities use
words and syntax to signify exactly the same things, to send identical
17 Ji Lev, Die literarische bersetzung: Theorie einer Kunstgattung. (Frankfurt am MainBonn: Athenum Verlag, 1969), pp. 33.
13

signals of valuation and inference. Neither do two human beings.18

In short, inside or between languages, human communication
equals translation, as in Steiners opinion, a human being performs
an act of translation, in the full sense of the word, when receiving a
speech-message from any other human being.
However, when discussing the linguistic aspects of translation,
Roman Jakobson goes a step further. He, too, admits that as
receivers, both the communicator and the translator decode and
encode a message. But, from this moment on, a clear-cut difference
between the two is necessary. As a sender, the COMMUNICATOR
moves within the frame of the same language, i.e. vertically in
Steiners view, his task being that of RE-WORDING. This is the
INTRALINGUAL TRANSLATIONan interpretation of verbal
signs by means of other signs in the same language, 19 or an
intralingual paraphrasing, which according to W. Winter occurs
when within the framework of one single language in the case of
stylistic shiftswe find ourselves asked to make plain and intelligible
a highly esoteric statement we have just made. 20 During this
process, as a receiver, the COMMUNICATOR:
decodes the message got from the sender,
encodes messages different from those received,
encodes into the language used by the sender,
George Steiner, After Babel. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), p. 45.
Roman Jakobson, apud Mark Shuttelworth and Moira Cowie, Dictionary of
Translation Studies. (ST Jerome Publishing, 1999), p. 87.
20 By his definition of translation [to translate is to replace the formulation of a
segment of the universe around us and within us by another formulation as
equivalent as possible], W. Winter undoubtedly supports George Steiners of the
vertical and horizontal transfer of significance, as he does not seem to make any
fundamental distinction between intralingual translation and interlingual
paraphrasing. He accepts that such a definition or use of the term is rather
ambiguous, marginal as he calls it, despite the fact that in both cases the basic
characteristics of the process are all present. Nonetheless, at second thoughts, he
feels compelled to disambiguate his definition by adding that as a rule, we may
inject into our definition the further qualification that translation involves the
replacement of an interpretation in one language by another in a second
language. (See, Werner Koller, Einfhrung... op.cit., p. 91.)
14
18
19

and, as a sender, he transmits the message to the previous sender.

Whereas the TRANSLATOR being the bilingual
mediating agent between monolingual communication
participants in two different language communities, (House)
he performs, according to Roman Jakobson, an INTERLINGUAL
TRANSLATIONan interpretation of verbal signs by means of
some other language, 21 namely he moves horizontally in Steiners
view. As a receiver, the TRANSLATOR is obliged to decode the
message of the SL text only to re-encode it into the TL and, as a
sender, to aim the message at a group of receivers who are not the
same as the original sender. To sum it up, it is this REENCODING process in the TL that separates the translator from
the monolingual communicator.
Moreover, Roman Jakobson also distinguishes a third type of
translation,
the
INTERSEMIOTIC
TRANSLATION
transmutation, i.e. an interpretation of verbal signs by means of
signs of nonverbal sign systems. 22 What is thus meant is the
transmutation of a verbal message into another medium of expression;
i.e. the target code is a metaphorical manner of speaking. Jakobsons
argument in favor of intersemiotic translation is that with this
translation certain structural features . . . are preserved despite the
disappearance of their verbal shape, as many poetic features
belong not only to the science of language but to the whole theory
of signs, that is, to general semiotics. 23 Hence, only the process of
transfer from SL to TL will be regarded as translation proper.
However, the actual translation process ends only when the reader
finally receives the product, in other words, the translation process
becomes effective only when the re-encoded message is decoded
within the TL community through the process of reading.
In conclusion, we believe that one more aspect deserves being
mentioned here. Since language operates only within a cultural
Mark Shuttelworth and Moira Cowie, Dictionary op.cit., p. 83.
Ibid., p. 85.
23 Roman Jakobson Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics, in Thomas A.
Sebeok (ed.) Style in Language. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press), p. 350-351.
15
21
22

context, the translator, as mediator between two languages, becomes

also a mediator between the cultural contexts of the two languages.
So, he is expected to be proficient in the two languages and in the
two cultures behind them. Hence, according to Gideon Toury
(Polysystem Theory), translation becomes the incorporation of a
culturally foreign text into a target culture, or as Helga Pfetsch puts
it, translation also means cultural transfer. Through cultural
awareness the translator will be able to establish translation
equivalents and successfully accomplish an act of interlingual and
intercultural communication.
Having reached this point, we believe that a brief survey of the
qualities to be sought in a translator, would be extremely helpful, as
to translate does not necessarily mean to be a translator. Many
individuals may re-write a text in a new language (i.e. re-formulate it)
without whishing to be identified as a translator. Therefore, such an
undertaking must be done cautiously, as generalization is always
risky.
On the other hand, the meaning attributed to the task of the
translator is circumscribed by a series of tensions which are
continually rearticulated, i.e. the tensions between low and high
genres, between creative and derivative writing, between the
prestigious languages of antiquity and non-prestigious national
vernaculars, between dominant and subordinate cultures.
Finally yet importantly, it is definitely not a secret that the class
of translators is quite heterogeneous, ranging from the good to the
indifferent and then to the bad, from the crafty and artful to the
slavish ones.
In brief, regardless of the type of text, a translator performs a
translinguistic activity along with cultural mediation and therefore:
he must be a master of two languages, but his mastery need
not be of the same sort in both;
his knowledge of the foreign language must be critical,
whereas that of his native tongue must be practical, and

16

to linguistic knowledgeas he has to cling to words,

collocations, structures, and emphasesand literary capacity,
he must also add sympathy, insight, diligence, and
conscientiousness 24 ;
he must select and then use the translation method best
suited to the type of text;
he must establish the hierarchy of the values to be preserved
in the translation;
before embarking upon the actual translation activity he
must perform a syntactic analysis of the SL text and, once
the basic structures have been transferred into the TL, he
must rework the TT in order to reach dynamic equivalence;
he must always avoid any personal opinion or subjective
judgment with reference to the SL text;
he must have the courage to employ unconventional, daring
and archaic terms;
he must be acquainted with the socio-cultural background of
the original writer and his work;
his translation must be fairly close to the original;
he must select the right stylistic level and, last but not least,
he needs a great amount of experience.

After having tried to be as detailed as possible about the tasks

that are normally set before the dedicated translator, we believe that
Kornei Chukovskys words in A High Art (a leading Russian critic,
theorist and translator) epitomize the above-mentioned features:
When all is said and done, we must demand that an artistic
translation reproduce not only the original authors ideas and
images, not only his plot schemes, but also his literary manner, his
creative personality, his style. If this objective is not achieved, the
translation is useless. It is an act of slander which is all the more

24 See Theodore Savory, The Art of Translation. (Boston: The Writer, Inc., 1968), p.
35-36.
17

repugnant, because the original author almost never has an

opportunity to repudiate it. 25

2. Equivalence and Translatability

At the heart of linguistic theory seems to be the question whether or

not translation is in fact possible, particularly between different
languages. So far, two radically opposed points of view have been
asserted in the philosophy of language.
The one declares that the underlying structure of language (deep
structures in Noam Chomskys view) is universal and common
to all men. Hence, the distinctions between languages are
basically of the surface and to translate means to go beyond these
exterior differences in order to bring into play the common
principles.
The contrary view asserts that the universal deep structures are
either boundless or so abstract and so generalized that they are
almost insignificant, as in their opinion all men use language
individually, all languages are able to name objects or to express
action. Hence, due to this diversity, real and accurate translation
is impossible. So, what people generally call translation according
to this view is, in fact, a convention of approximate analogies. 26
Starting from Roman Jakobsons classification (intralingual,
interlingual, and intersemiotic translation), opinion which, otherwise,
states that translation cannot achieve complete equivalence as each
25 Kornei Chukovsky, A High Art. (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press,
1984), p. 18.
26
George Steiner, After, op.cit., p. 73-4.
18

unit contains in itself a set of nontransferable elements, associations

and connotations, worth mentioning at this point is J. C. Catfords
classification of translation based on the levels of language analysis
(extent, levels, and ranks).
From the point of view of the extent, Catford distinguishes
between FULL and PARTIAL translation. In a full translation the
whole text is translated; every part of the SL text will be replaced by
TL material and, consequently, the TT will contain no SL elements
at all, whether we deal with single text items or longer passages.
In a partial translation, parts of the SL text are left
untranslated; very often they are transferred to and incorporated into
the TL text, either because they are considered untranslatable or
for the sake of creating local color, of introducing an SL flavor
into the TL text. Eventually, however, these items will inevitably
acquire new contextual meanings in the TL. As illustration of this,
Catford cites the example of the Russian word sputnik, which, as a
foreign borrowing, in English is understood differently (Russian
artificial satellite) from the way it is used in Russian, i.e. has a
translation equivalent in a number of lexical sets: fellow-traveler,
companion, satellite, artificial satellite. Now embedded in an English text,
sputnik has acquired an English formal and contextual meaning. 27
From the point of view of the levels, Catford opposes
TOTAL to RESTRICTED translation. The total translation is
what is generally meant by translation, i.e. when all levels of the SL
text are replaced by TL material. In other words, equivalent TL
grammar and lexis replace SL grammar and lexis, whereas nonequivalent TL phonology and graphology replace SL phonology and
graphology. It is only SL grammar and lexis which is directly
replaced by equivalent TL material; the replacement on phonological
and graphological level occurs concomitantly via non-equivalent TL
material. Exceptions, however, will be found in film dubbing or the
translation of poetry, where TT graphology or phonology is
sometimes partially equivalent to that of the ST.
27

J. C. Catford, A Linguistic Theory op.cit., p. 47.

19

By restricted translation, Catford means replacement of SL

text material by equivalent TL text material at only one level of the
four: phonology, graphology, grammar or lexis.
As to rank in grammatical hierarchy (low-rank:
morpheme-to-morpheme and word-to-word, and high-rank: groupto-group, clause-to-clause, and sentence-to-sentence) Catford
opposes RANK-BOUND to UNBOUNDED translation.
With former, the rank-bound translation, the selection of
TL equivalents is deliberately confined to one rank (or a few ranks,
low in the rank-scale) in the hierarchy of grammatical units, 28 i.e.
the translator will always tray to select TL equivalents at the same
rank. For example, in machine translations equivalences may be
established at word-for-word or morpheme-to-morpheme rank, but
not a high-rank level, i.e. group of words, clauses or sentences.
By unbounded translation, J. C. Catford denotes a type of
total translation in which equivalences shift freely up and down the
rank scale, in other words, a SL grammatical unit of a certain size
may be rendered by a TL equivalent of a different size.
In conclusion, if, starting from Catfords classification, we
were to define three frequently used types of translationfree, wordfor-word, and literalthe FREE translation will always be an
unbounded one, the WORD-FOR-WORD will be a rank-bound
translation (at word level, without observing any grammar rules: I
have read the book will be translated into German Ich habe gelesen das
Buch.), whereas the LITERAL translation lies between the two
extremes. It may start at word-for-word level, but it will observe TL
grammar, namely additional words may be inserted, structures may
be changed in conformity with TL grammar. (I have read the book
will be translated as Ich habe das Buch gelesen thus observing German
word order.)
Having reached this point, worth mentioning is the fact that
both above-mentioned classifications (Jakobsons and Catfords),
like others, are centered on achieving translation equivalence, a
28

Ibid , p. 24,
20

term used to describe the nature and the extent of the relationships
between SL and TL texts, somehow the interlingual counterpart
of intralingual synonymy. In fact, we are dealing with a
polysemous word, the precise meaning of which varying from one
theoretician to another. Nowadays, to reduce translation equivalence
to something quantifiable, on the one hand, and translation, on the
other hand, to the mere replacement of textual material in one
language by suitable textual material in another language, i.e. to a
simple linguistic exercise, is no longer acceptable, because cultural,
textual, and other factors have gradually started to play an essential
role in translation. This perception has triggered distinctive
classifications in the issue of equivalence. Here are some:
1. Nida (and Taber, too,) distinguishes between dynamic and
formal equivalence. Dynamic equivalence occurs when the message
of the SL text has been so transported into the TL that the response
of the TL receptor will be essentially like that of the SL receptor. A
well-known example of a dynamically equivalent translation is the
decision to render the Biblical phrase Lamb of God into an
Eskimo language as Seal of God. The fact that lambs are
unknown in Polar Regions has led to the substitution of a culturally
meaningful item. Despite argumentation in favor or against it, the
notion of dynamic equivalence is especially relevant to Bible
translation, given the particular need of Biblical translations to both
inform readers with a relevant message and elicit a response from
them.
In the course of time, the initial term of dynamic equivalence
will be gradually replaced by functional equivalence, a new term less
open to misinterpretation and which serves to highlight the
communicative functions of translating, i.e. the function of the SL
text is adapted in order to suit the specific context in and for which
it was produced. Later developments in Translation Studies agree
upon the fact that the function a text has to fulfill has apparently
become now the most widely accepted frame of reference for
translation equivalence. However, problems remain in the case of
texts that possess more than one function.
21

Formal equivalence, also proposed in the context of Bible

translation, refers to the translation in which the features of the form
have been mechanically reproduced in the TL. In this case the
translator allows the ST speak in its own terms rather than
attempting to adjust it to the circumstances of the target culture. In
practice, this means using rather formal than functional equivalents
wherever possible, not joining or splitting sentences, and preserving
punctuation marks and paragraph breaks. 29 Formal equivalents
should be used wherever possible, if the translation aims at achieving
formal rather than dynamic equivalence. The use of formal
equivalents might, at times, may have serious implications in the TT,
since the target audience will not easily understand the translation.
On the other hand, a translation exclusively based on this form of
equivalence practically distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns
of the TL and, hence, the message. For this reason it is necessary to
accompany the translated text by explanatory notes. Nevertheless,
formal equivalence is sometimes the most appropriate strategy for
translating Biblical and other sacred texts; it is also useful in backtranslation or when the translator may for some reason be unwilling
to accept responsibility for changing the wording of the TT.
However, Nida and Taber admit that dynamic and formal
equivalence should be viewed as general orientation rather than an
absolute technique, so that between these two extremes there are
any numbers of grades, which represent acceptable methods of
translation. 30 Despite all the above-mentioned limitations, the
general tendency towards formal equivalence seems to be triggered
by the translators/interpreters concern for accuracy and his
preference for retaining the SL wording whenever possible.
2. J. C. Catford distinguishes between textual equivalence and
formal correspondence. Textual equivalence is any TL text or
Eugene Nida, Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and
Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964), p. 165.
30 Ibid , op.cit., p. 160.
22
29

portion of text which is observed on a particular occasion . . . to be

the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text. It can be
identified either on the authority of a competent bilingual
informant or translator or by means of commutation, or changing
items in ST and observing what changes if any occur in the TL text
as a consequence. 31
Formal correspondence is a theoretical, systemic category that
is established on the basis of a formal comparison between the SL
and the TL. It exists when a TL category can be found which
occupies the same place in the economy of the TL as the given
SL category occupies in the SL. 32 However, on the other hand,
Catford argues that formal correspondence is nearly always
approximate, owing to the inevitable compatibles existing between
the systems of the two languages.
3. The German theoretician Otto Kade (the Leipzig School, in the
mid-sixties) distinguishes four types of equivalence: total (one-toone), facultative [optional] (one-to-many), approximative (one-topart), and zero (one-to-none). After dividing the text up into frames
or units, the translator is to pick the optimal equivalent from a
varying field of equivalents and options.
4. At micro levels, H. Norbert identifies the following types of
equivalence:
- semantic-functional equivalence at content level;
- formal (poetical) equivalence at expression level;
- sociocultural and dynamic equivalence at pragmatic level.
5. On the other hand, related to the 5 frames of reference, Werner
Koller distinguishes the following equivalence typologies: denotative
(the extralingual situation that is conveyed in a text); connotative
(the connotations conveyed via the type of verbalization); text31
32

J. C. Catford, A Linguistic Theory, op. cit., p. 27-8.

Ibid , op.cit., p. 27.
23

normative (text and language standards valid for particular texts);

pragmatic (refers to the receiver at whom the translation is targeted
and who is supposed to finally consume the text), and formalaesthetic (certain aesthetical, formal and individualistic features of
the ST).
6. Anton Popovi classifies equivalence into linguistic, paradigmatic, stylistic, and textual.
Linguistic equivalence is defined as homogeneity of
elements upon the linguistic (phonetic, morphological, and syntactic)
level of the original and the translation, as he considers the
linguistic levels to be the lowest level of a text, despite their being
concerned with stylistic purity and linguistic correctness. 33
Paradigmatic equivalence is defined by Popovi as
equivalence of the elements of a paradigmatic expressive axis upon
the stylistic level as a system of expressive elements. The term
paradigmatic refers to the entire range of expressive possibilities
from which the actual items found in a given text are drawn, but this
type of equivalence is not identical with lexical synonymic
equivalence, as part of linguistic equivalence. 34
Stylistic equivalence (or translational equivalence or adequacy
or expressive correspondence or faithfulness to the original) refers
to the functional equivalence of elements in both original and
translation aiming at an expressive identity with an invariant of
identical meaning, in other words, it involves preserving the
expressive character of the ST along with retaining, as much as
possible, of its basic semantic content. 35
Textual equivalence (or syntagmatic equivalence) deals with
the arrangement of the elements upon the syntagmatic axis of the
text, 36 i.e. the specific ordering of stylistic and expressive elements

Mark Shuttleworth and Moira Cowie, Dictionary op.cit., p. 93-4.

Ibid., p. 120.
35 Ibid., p. 160.
36 Ibid., p. 169.
24
33
34

in a given text in order to denote equivalence on the level of

structure, form, and shape.
7. Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet are much more practical
when tackling the issue of equivalence, as they rather view
equivalence-oriented translation as a procedure, which replicates
the same situation as in the original, whilst using completely
different wording. 37 If applied, this procedure can preserve the
stylistic impact of the SL text in the TL text. Moreover, in their
opinion, this procedure turns out to be the ideal method in the case
of proverbs, idioms, clichs, nominal or adjectival phrases, and
onomatopoeia. In the matter of equivalent expressions between
language pairs, the two theoreticians believe that they are acceptable
as long as they are listed in bilingual dictionaries as full
equivalents, although they later on admit that such glossaries and
collections of idiomatic expressions can never be exhaustive.
However, it is the situation itself that triggers the need for creating
equivalences and, moreover, it is again in the situation of the SL text
that translators have to look for a solution. On the other hand, they
argue that even if the semantic equivalence is indeed listed in a
glossary or a dictionary, it might not suffice and, hence, it does not
guarantee a successful translation:
e.g. the fixed expression Take one can be generally rendered
by the French equivalent Prenez-en un, but if the
expression appears as a notice next to a basket of free
samples in a store, it is much more appropriate to
translate it as chantillon gratuit.
So, in such cases the translator must identify the sense and
then perform all transfer operations inside the semantic area.
Last but not least, we believe that a synopsis of the factors that
condition equivalence is worth mentioning here. We believe the
following to be of utmost importance:
37

Apud Susan Bassnett, Translation, op.cit., p. 34.

25

- the SL and TL with their structural characteristics, possibilities and

restrictions;
- the SL text with the linguistic, stylistic and aesthetic norms of the
SL;
- the linguistic, stylistic and aesthetic norms of the TL which the
translator has to observe closely;
- the structural characteristics of a text;
- the translators understanding of the SL text doubled by his will to
appropriately design the TL text;
- the explicit and/or implicit translation principles, prescriptions and
the authors own interpretation of the SL text, etc;
- temporal factors, i.e.:
a) each translation bears the imprint of the time it was performed, of
that particular idiom and of the perspective which the translator
chose as dominant;
b) each translation is targeted at the reader belonging to a distinctive
age and a certain cultural stamp;
c) each translation represents one single possibility of re-encoding of
an original text. In this sense, Anton Popovi identifies three
distinctive instances, i.e. when the epoch of the original coincides
with that of the translation, when the epoch of the target culture
follows that of the original, and the instance when the epoch in
which the original text came into being in the source culture does
not exist in the target culture.
- interspatial factor, i.e. the impact of the source culture upon the
translation is more powerful than that of the target culture, the
impact of the target culture is more powerful than that of the source
culture, and the impact of both cultures is equally powerful.
Indisputably, the issue of equivalence, or rather the
possibility/impossibility of equivalence, triggers that of linguistic
TRANSLATABILITY vs. UNTRANSLATABILITY. It is
generally accepted that this opposing pair of notions, along with that
of LOSS and GAIN, are generated by the differences between
languages or, as Ortega y Gasset states, languages separate us and
hinder communication because, on the one hand, they are
26

different themselves and because, on the other hand, they come

from different minds, from different intellectual systems and from
different philosophies. In his famous essay Miseria y esplendor de la
traducccion, he concludes that translation is a utopia. Nevertheless,
that does not mean to abandon translation, on the contrary, the
search for possibilities of communication and, hence, of translation
should not be abandoned. This splendor of the translation rises
from its own misery, from the successful overcoming of
difficulties.
What renders the translation process difficult are mainly
lexical elements or what are generally labeled untranslatable
words. The incongruity of vocabularies had already been clearly
stated by Friedrich Schleiermacher when he remarked that not even
one single word from one language has its complete (total)
correspondence into another language. Jakob Grimm, on the
other hand, stated the fact that the form and meaning (content) of
words belonging to different idioms do not overlap entirely. Here
are some of the most cited untranslatable words:
e.g. (Latin) virtus; (French) charme, sprit; (Italian) virt;
(German)
Gemt,
Geist,
Heimat;
(English)
understatement, gentleman; (Romanian) dor, tain, etc.
These words put up resistance to translation due to the
indestructible and organic relationship between the phenomenon
and the certain historical and cultural environment. Thus, for
instance, the German scholar T. T. Segerstedt in his book Die Macht
des Wortes (The Force of Words) comes to the conclusion that in the
case of the word gentleman, it can be defined only from a
sociological point of view. The word is difficult to translate
accurately into German because Germany lacked the social
conditions to produce a total equivalent for the English gentleman;
Germany has never seen such a superposed social stratum, that is a
social stratum to be large enough as to produce a human ideal, as the
one the term gentleman reflects.
The difficulty of finding total/absolute equivalences is
caused by the situational context in which one word or another is
27

used in the process of communication, i.e. the connotations a word

receives and which are different for every language, people, historical
age or individual. Wilhelm von Humboldt was one of the first
scholars to connect the question of connotations to the practice of
translation in the matter of translatability, stating that every language
expresses a particular notion in a slightly different way, with one or
another contiguous delimitation, a step higher or lower on the scale
of feelings.
The individual connotations are in other words, as Diderot
said, the distinguishing elements between la langue du sentiment and
la langue commune (the referential language denoting real objects) or
as the linguist E. Sapir calls them the feeling-tones of words, which so
often hinder the process of translation.
Eugene Nida opposes the referential/cognitive meaning to
the emotive one, i.e. to the subjective reactions of the speaker. The
transfer of the referential aspect from one language to another is
possible, despite structural differences. All messages can be
translated from the point of view of the meaning, often by giving up
stylistic equivalences because of the connotation that are attached to
that particular word.
TRANSLATATIBILTY is a term which discusses the extent
to which any amount of textual material ranging from individual
words and phrases to entire texts can be translated from one
language into another. This concept was triggered by the tension
between two basic arguments:
a) the fact that different languages do not mesh together, i.e.
the unique configurations of grammar, vocabulary and metaphor in
each language inevitably have some influence on the types of
meaning that can be expressed in that language;
b) despite this consideration, translation between languages
still occurs and, moreover, with a fairly high degree of success.
The concept of translatability has in most cases been
postulated from rather extremist positions represented, on the one
hand, by rationalist thinkers and their followers who are in favor
of total translatability, i.e. translation can be achieved fully and
28

without difficulty and, on the other hand, by idealist linguists who

sustain absolute untranslatability (Whorf, Sapir, Weisberger,
Gipper, etc.).
But, between these two extremist positions, a third thesis
that of relative translatability (Nida, Mounin, Catford, Levy a.o.)
has gradually imposed itself within Translation Studies. The
theoreticians who favor this position believe that the notion of
translatability has to be considered in relation to each instance of
translation, and must be linked with the text-type of the ST, the
purpose of translation and the translation principles that are
followed by the translator. Despite any structural difference between
idioms, any linguistic message is translatable from the
referential point of view, in other words, the entire cognitive
experience is translatable, but without complete stylistic
equivalence.
According to these latter theorists, firstly, a secondarylinguistic untranslatability may occur although the primary-linguistic
translatability is possible [we speak here about the general principle
of translatability]. It is here the case of shades of meaning (nuances),
of elements linked to cultural context, to phrasing, and to individual
experience, which all seem sometimes unsurpassable obstacles.
Secondly, since a complete preservation of the connotative
values is practically impossible [the principle of loss and gain
functioning thus], translation becomes a permanent endeavor to
achieve an equivalent, as close as possible with the help of
compensating elements.
Thirdly, translation becomes an attempt to achieve synonymy
at all linguistic levels (semantic and stylistic) with the SL text.
To sum it up, in translating especially a literary text some
losses occur due to the impossibility of rendering certain stylistic
effects of the SL text, but at the same time certain semantic gains
may also be achieved when there are some possibilities in the TL
which otherwise do not exist in the language of the original text.
Worth mentioning, for instance, is the large number of terms in
29

Finnish for variations of snow, in Arabic for aspects of camel

behavior (both obviously generated by the specific environment), in
English for light (shine vs. flash, sparkle vs. glimmer) and water (shallow
vs. deep), or in French for types of bread, which all present the
translator with extremely difficult translation problems, if not
untranslatable ones. The latter would be the situation when the
translator is confronted with terms and concepts in the SL that do
not exist in the TL, or the other way round. Such is the case,
according to Eugene Nida, of Guaica, a language in southern
Venezuela where the English terms of murder, stealing, lying would be
extremely difficult to render since the concepts of good, bad, ugly,
beautiful cover an area of meaning utterly different from English. In
fact, this language does not follow a dichotomous classification of
GOOD and BAD, but a trichotomous one of GOOD, BAD, and
VIOLATING TABOO.
GOOD includes: desirable food, killing enemies, chewing
dope in moderation, putting fire to ones wife to teach her to obey,
and stealing from someone not belonging to ones band;
BAD includes: rotten fruit, murdering someone from the same
band, lying to anyone, and stealing from the extended family;
VIOLATING TABOO includes: incest, being too close to
ones mother-in-law, a married womans eating tapir before the birth
of the first child, and a childs eating rodents. 38
However, despite the evident difficulty in translating such
terms and concepts, this should not be regarded as impossibility of
translation, as the dedicated and experienced translator must and
will undoubtedly come up with solutions to bridge over these
difficulties, mainly by resorting to explanatory periphrases, in other
words, by giving the closest natural equivalent. Moreover, when
there is no word to signify some notion, he can resort to borrowings
from the SL, which are explained by means of footnotes and which
are then likely to be assimilated by the TL. This is chiefly the case of
38

Eugene Nida, Toward a Science of, op.cit., p. 79.

30

coinagesa very old method of enriching the vocabularywhich

are very colorful and striking terms, but, otherwise, fairly difficult of
rendering in the TL appropriately. Most theorists agree that in the
case of coinages there is no pre-set rule or directive to follow. Each
coinage has to be judged individually in order to find the best
possible solution. For example, the term cleptopigiathe mania of
stealing pigs, a completely artificial-technical term invented on
purpose by O. Henry, which is formed of the Greek kleptes thief
like in kleptomania (the mania of stealing things)and pigia, from the
Anglo-Saxon root pig + the suffix -ia, vaguely reminding of
mania, with the obvious intention to suggest a malady and at the
same time to create a humorous effect. Its translation into Romanian
as cleptoporcie would be too cheap. Then, porcolotrie (lotru=ho) or
porcinolotrie are fairly acceptable, although to a certain extent
difficult of being understood by the average Romanian reader no
longer familiar with the archaic term lotru, so, cleptopigie plus a
footnote explaining how the term came into being turns out to be
the appropriate solution. 39
Apart from lexical difficulties, the translator will also
encounter grammatical ones. Let us mention here, for instance, the
category of aspect, a verbal form that specifies how the action
expressed by the verb occurs, i.e. generically or closely related to
the moment of speaking. The opposition between the indefinite
and the progressive aspect is to be found in English, Ancient
Greek, Russian, but not in the Romance languages, as the former are
more careful about the exact time when the action occurs. Unlike
English, Romanian, for instance, does not have special conjugation
forms to render present reality. The difference between the
progressive and indefinite aspect results from the context and
from the polyfunctionality of the Romanian system of tenses, which
works hand in hand with a system of determinatives (adverbs and
prepositions determining temporal values) to compensate for the
39 Leon Levichi, ndrumar pentru traductorii din limba englez n limba romn.
(Bucureti: Ed. tiinific i Enciclopedic, 1975), p. 115.
31

lacunae in morphology and, hence, to render situational and lexical

meaning accurately. And such examples could go on forever!
(Expression of the Past Habit in English depending on the language
levelfamiliar, colloquial and formal, or the rendering into
French and Romanian of the English Frequentative Form by means
of various phrases.)
In conclusion, on the one hand, theorists unanimously agree
that, in linguistic terms, as far as translatability is concerned, the
distinction must be made between the Primary Linguistic Aspect
based on cognitive experienceincluding DENOTATIONwhich
can be described by the referential definition, and the Secondary
Linguistic Aspect based on emotive experienceincluding
CONNOTATIONS, the feeling tones/Gefhlstnewhich are
obviously related to the cultural context. But on the other hand,
worth mentioning is the constantly growing tendency among
present-day theorists to no longer bother with the notions of
translatability and faithfulness, because, anyway, the translation
process as such aims at overcoming translation difficulties of
whatever type they might be.

32

3. Translation Methods: Communicative vs.

Semantic Translation

Most modern theorists mutually agree that it is almost impossible to

state the principles of translation in succinct form, as there are no
universally accepted principles of translation, mainly because those,
who in time (from Roman times to the 20th century) have embarked
on theorizing translation, have actually never agreed among
themselves in this respect. Moreover, they have so often and for so
long contradicted each other that, at first sight, the entire body of
literature in this field of activity looks pretty confusing.
Nevertheless, worth mentioning here is T. H. Savorys attempt
to group twelve instructions in contrasting pairs (sometimes
paradoxes), which subsume all types of translation ranging from the
literal or faithful translation to the idiomatic or free translation:
1. A translation must give the words of the original.
2. A translation must give the ideas of the original.
3. A translation should read like an original.
4. A translation should read like a translation.
5. A translation should reflect the style of the original.
6. A translation should possess the style of the translator.
7. A translation should read as a contemporary of the original.
8. A translation should read as a contemporary of the
translator.
9. A translation may add or omit from the original.
10. A translation may never add or omit from the original.
11. A translation of verse should be in prose.
12. A translation of verse should be in verse. 40
In fact, on the one hand, Theodore Savory indeed stresses
upon the aspect that there has always been support for the literal
translation, since it is the translators duty to be faithful to his
40

Theodore Savory, The Artop.cit., p. 50.

33

original, but, on the other hand, he also admits that the translator
must have clearly in mind what faithfulness implies and in what it
consists. In his opinion, faithfulness does not mean a word-for-word
translation, which, otherwise, is the most primitive type of
translating, fit only for the most mundane and prosaic of matters, 41
but rather adherence to the Source Text, a fair and successful
communication of the spirit of the original:
One reason for the advocacy of faithfulness is that the
translator has never allowed himself to forget that he is a translator.
He is not, he recognizes, the original author, and the work in hand
was never his own; he is an interpreter, one whose duty is to act as a
bridge or channel between the mind of the author and the minds of
his readers. He must efface himself and allow Rome or Berlin to
speak directly to London and Paris. If he feels that he has done this,
he may well be proud of his achievement. 42

In consequence, the accurate translation is legitimate:

to include idiomatic expressions that the original may

seem to suggest;

to include departures from the precise phrasing of the

original (imposed by the nature of the TL);

to read like an original and display all the freshness of

original composition;

to come nearer to the style of the original, however,

without a slavish imitation of the authors style. (But
what is true of the author is true also of the translator.
Insofar as the authors style determines his choice of a
word, for most of the time, the translator is also
compelled to make a choice between alternatives, i.e. he
is influenced by his own personality which reflects then
his own style.)
And, since style is influenced not only by the original authors
personality, but also by the historical period in which he lives,
41
42

Ibid., p. 51.
Ibid., p. 51.
34

translation becomes the bridging of both the time and the space, its
overall function being to produce in the minds of the TL readers
the same emotions as those produced by the original in the
minds of the SL readers. 43
In the pre-linguistics period of translation theory, which may
be said to stretch from Cicero through St. Jerome, Luther, Dryden,
Tytler, Goethe, Schleiermacher, Ortega y Gasset, and Savory,
opinion moved to and fro between the literal, faithful and exact
translation and the free, beautiful and natural one, depending on
whether the preference was either for the author and the SL text or
for the reader and the TL text. Moreover, up to the nineteenth
century, literal translation was also viewed as a philological academic
exercise and activity. In fact, most of these pre-linguistics opinions
were to a great extent anticipated and synthesized by Alexander
Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee, in The Principles of Translation
the first systematic study in English of the translation processwho
in 1791 enunciated three basic principles, which are still valid
nowadays, as they stipulate a balance between form and content, a
blending of the future communicative and semantic approaches:
1. the translation should give a complete transcript of the
idea of the original work;
2. the style and manner of writing should be of the same
character with that of the original;
3. the translation should have all the ease of the original
composition. 44
Gradually, in the nineteenth century a more scientific
approach crystallized and theorists started to admit the existence of
two opposite and apparently irreconcilable tendencies:
a) when texts that are meant to inform the reader effectively
and appropriately (non-literary culture) should be
translated more freely in order to produce upon the TL

43
44

Ibid., pp. 51-9.

Apud Susan Bassnett, Translation, op.cit., p. 63.
35

reader an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the

SL reader, and
b) when texts that are meant to delight the reader (high
literary culture) should be translated more literally i.e. by
rendering the exact contextual meaning of the SL text, as
closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the TL
allow it.
Finally, Peter Newmark in the twentieth century makes a most
valuable contribution by naming the former tendency the
communicative approach and the latter the semantic approach.
In his opinion, there are important and obvious differences
between the two approachesplusses and minuses alike. The
communicative method concerns itself with the receptor, i.e.
addresses the TL reader, focusing on the force rather than the
content of the message in the attempt to follow the original authors
intention. It is smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct, and more
conversational. It tends to undertranslate, i.e. to resort to more
generic, hold-all terms in difficult passages. The product is more
suggestive; it is superior to the original as it may gain in force and
clarity. In communicative translation the translator is trying in his
own language to write a little better than the original and, for that, he
has the right to interfere, to correct and improve the logic, to
remove obscurities, to replace clumsy with elegant, functional
syntactic structures. He also has the right and, we believe the duty
too, to exclude ambiguity, repetition and tautology, to correct all
mistakes and slips, but only via footnotes. In doing so, the translator
who resorts to the communicative method, obviously aware that the
message is all important, adopts and makes the original authors
thought along with the cultural content of the SL text more
accessible to the receptor.
On the other hand, the semantic method remains with the
original culture, being concerned with the transmitter (SL author),
i.e. following the authors thought processes. The semantic
translation is more informative, more complex, more awkward and,
hence, less effective. It tends to overtranslate, to be more specific
36

than the original, to include more meanings in its search for a

nuance of meaning. At the same time being concrete, the translator
having to cling to words, collocations, structures, emphases, the
product may result in a poorly written or repetitive text that turns
out to be inferior to the original. With semantic translation all
corrections are inadmissible. It results that the end product is much
more expressive than with the communicative approach, the
translator having to convey the original expression and the exact
contextual meaning of the SL text. Since to him words are sacred,
his task is then to recreate the precise flavor and tone of the original,
to preserve the authors idiolect, his peculiar form of expression.
The syntax will give the text its stresses and rhythms rendering it
subtler, more comprehensive and more penetrating than the
communicatively translated text as, unlike the latter, it does not
require cultural adoptation.
Illustrative of the above-mentioned characteristics are the two
versions of the following passages of De Gaulles 18 June 1940
broadcast:
Infiniment plus que leur nombre, ce sont les chars, les avions,
la tactique des Allemands qui nous font reculer. Ce sont les chars,
les avions, la tactique des Allemands qui ont surpris nos chefs au
point de les amener l o ils en sont aujourdhui . . .
Car la France nest pas seule! Elle nest pas seule! Elle nest
pas seule!

1. The 1966 translation done by E. Spears, and which P. Newmark

considers unacceptable, illustrates the communicative approach:
It was the tanks, the planes and the tactics of the Germans,
far more than the fact that we were outnumbered, that forced our
armies to retreat. It was the German tanks, planes and tactics that
provided the element of surprise which brought our leaders to
their present plight . . .
For remember this, France does not stand alone! She is not
isolated.

2. Newmarks suggested version, which obviously reproduces the

starkness, simplicity and rawness of De Gaulles speech, reads:
37

Far, far more than their numbers, it was the tanks, the planes
and the tactics of the Germans that caused us to retreat. It was the
tanks, the planes and the tactics of the Germans that took our
leaders by surprise and thus brought them to the state they are
today . . .
For France is not alone! She is not alone! She is not alone!

The conclusion, which Peter Newmark reaches, is that since

the overriding factor in deciding which method or approach to
choose is the intrinsic importance of every semantic unit in the text,
it follows that the vast majority of texts require communicative
rather than semantic translation. So, suitable for communicative
translation will be most non-literary writing, journalism, informative
texts, textbooks, reports, scientific and technological writing, nonpersonal correspondence, propaganda, publicity, public notices,
standardized writing, popular fiction, etc. On the other hand,
original expression, where the specific language of the writer is as
important as the contenta fusion of the manner and the matter
i.e. in philosophical, religious, political, scientific, technical or literary
texts, autobiography, private correspondence, etc. must be translated
semantically, since the preservation and accurate rendering of the
intimate flavor of the original is more important than its effect on
the TL reader. Hence, for such a translation to be successful two
factors are of utmost importance: the amount of cultural overlap
between the two languages (which is more important than the
structural affinity or the geographical proximity of the two
languages) and the translators empathy. Needless to say, that the
closer the cultural overlap and the greater the empathy, the closer
and the better the final product is likely to be. 45
Peter Newmarks concepts of communicative and semantic
approaches somehow prefigure to a large extent and, we venture to
say, are closely connected to and are supplemented by the two
translation strategies, which a few years later (1995) the more recent

45

See Peter Newmark, Approaches, op.cit., pp. 38-53.

38

theorist Lawrence Venuti will introduce in the field of translation

studies, when tackling the translators invisibility i.e.
domesticating translation (or domestication) and foreignizing
translation (or minoritizing). Although the two pairs of concepts
do not overlap in all respects, we believe they owe much to
Newmarks approaches and throw further light on the translators
activity.
Thus, in the case of domestication, a fluent style is adopted
in order to minimize the strangeness of the text for the TL receptor.
(Similar to Schleiermachers opinion of leaving the reader in peace
by moving the author towards him.) A translation approach based
on domestication will presuppose the undertaking of certain steps:
a careful selection of the texts which indeed lend themselves
to this kind of translation procedure;
the adoption of a fluent, natural-sounding TL style;
the interpolation of explanatory material (i.e. interference
with the SL text, hence overtranslation);
the removal of SL realia which provide local and historical
color (all textual elementsgeographical and ethnographical,
folkloric and mythological, everyday items, and sociohistorical ones), because such words have no exact
equivalents in other languages, and for which Sergei Vlakhov
and Sider Florin suggest six strategies: transcription, calque,
formation of a new word, assimilation, approximate
translation, and descriptive translation;
the general harmonization of the TT with TL canons,
preconceptions and preferences.
Venuti somehow deplores the fact that domestication turns
out to be a predominant translation policy common in dominant
cultures, such as the Anglo-American, which are aggressively
monolingual, unreceptive to the foreign . . . accustomed to fluent
translations that invisibly inscribe foreign texts with [target language]
values and provide readers with the narcissistic experience of
39

recognizing their own culture in a cultural other. So, the translators

main preoccupation will be then to merely prepare the SL text for a
culture where domestication is standard. 46
On the other hand, in the case of the foreignizing translation,
the TT breaks target conventions deliberately by retaining much of
the foreign character of the SL text. (This concept, too, obviously
stems from Schleiermachers view of leaving the SL author in peace
by moving the TL reader towards him.) Venuti proposes its
adoption in aggressively dominant monolingual cultures, such as the
Anglo-American one, as this cultural interventionfreedom from
absolute obedience to target linguistic and textual restraints, the
selection of a non-fluent, opaque style, and the deliberate inclusion
of SL realia and archaismswould literally challenge the mentality
of the TL culture, its role being to register the linguistic and cultural
difference of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad. 47
In conclusion, returning to Newmarks concepts of
communicative and semantic translation, and regardless of
certain obvious relationship with Lawrence Venutis strategies, the
former theorist warns us against considering the two approaches as
pure types, because in the translation of any kind of text the two
methods will have to combine in order to ensure a correct and
appropriate TL product. As such:
All translation remains a craft requiring a trained skill,
continually renewed linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge and a
great deal of flair and imagination, as well as intelligence and above
all common sense. Semantic translation, basically the work of one
translator, is an art. Communicative translation, sometimes the
product of a translators team, is a craft. (Those who can, translate.
Those who cannot, teach translation theory, learning hopefully from
their mistakes.) 48

See Lawrence Venuti, The Translators Invisibility. (London: Routledge, 1995), pp.
15-20.
47 Ibid, pp. 19-34.
48 Peter Newmark, Approaches, op.cit., p. 53.
40
46

4. Text-types and Translation Procedures

So far, we have seen that, in order to produce an appropriate and

flawless translation, the translator must first and foremost proceed
to an analysis of the quality and value of the writing in the SL text,
no matter whether he is dealing with a literary or a non-literary one.
However, it is worth mentioning here that, in time, a series of
misleading views, obviously fathered by less experienced people,
have led to two contradictory and equally wrong assumptions:
a) that literary texts (prose and poetry), owing to their formal
character (content and style), must be translated closely,
while non-literary texts, owing to their factual content, can
be translated freely, or
b) that literary texts, being artistic, can be translated freely,
while non-literary texts, being scientific, must be translated
accurately.
The truth is that, at this level the distinction between literary,
poetic and non-literary texts is irrelevant as, ideally, all should be
closely translated. Much more important is whether texts are well or
badly written, i.e. whether we deal with effective or ineffective
writing. It goes without saying, that well written texts represent a
challenge to the dedicated translator who needs to focus exclusively
on their appropriate translation. Whereas with poorly written texts,
he is performing a double translationan intralingual and an
interlingual onei.e. in order to render the texts full semantic value
he is entitled to more freedom in dealing with the SL text, by
replacing clumsy with elegant syntactic structures, by removing
redundant or repetitive items, by reducing the clich and the vogueword to a plainer statement, by clarifying the emphasis and
tightening up the sentence. 49

49

Peter Newmark, Approaches, op.cit., p. 127.

41

In order to establish an accurate classification of textcategories and text-types, a series of distinctive internal as well as
external factors must be taken into account, such as: language
functions, language varieties, facts and reality vs. fantasy and fiction.
Now, judging by the way in which the three main functions of
language (acc. to Bhlers 1934 functional theory of language)
expressive, informative and vocativeare closely reflected in the
source text and which need to be accurately preserved in the target
text, in 1971, Katharina Rei suggested the following tripartite
typology: informative, expressive, and operative texts. It is a
matter of common knowledge that, each text-type is identified by its
semantic, lexical, grammatical, and stylistic features, which reflect its
primary function and which will then, undoubtedly, influence the
way it is translated. Nevertheless, Rei warns us that these types
represent tendencies rather than clearly delineated categories.
Moreover, pure types of informative, expressive, or operative
texts are quite rare, so that most texts display an overlap of these
three functions, with an emphasis on one or the other. In other
words, texts may also have secondary, more subsidiary functions. It
is, therefore, the translators duty to identify the primary function of
the text to be translated and then in harmony with it to select the
proper translation method and procedure.
A) In the case of the informative text (content-focused
texts/inhaltsbetonte Texte), the primary aim is that of
transmitting information to the TL readerit is TL-oriented[Im
informativen Typ nehmen referenz-semantische Inhaltselemente den obersten
Rang unter den quivalenzkriterien ein . . .] 50 , the translators main
concern being that of achieving mainly semantic equivalence, and
only afterwards to turn to other kinds, such as connotative and
aesthetic. 51 The format of the informative text is often standard:
In the informative text-type, the referential-semantic content elements hold the
highest rank among equivalence criteria . . . (our translation)
51
See Katharina Rei/Hans J. Vermeer, Grundlegung einer allgemeiner
Translationstheorie. (Tbingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1991), pp. 150-151 and
Katharina Rei, Textbestimmung und bersetzungsmethode: Entwurf einer
42
50

textbooks, technical reports, articles in newspapers and periodicals,

scientific papers and academic articles, reference books, theses,
business letters, minutes or agendas of meetings, official documents,
operating instructions, etc.
As to the stylistic level, the informative text adopts a modern,
non-regional, non-class, non-idiolectal style in conformity with the
four basic language varieties: (1) a formal, non-emotive, technical
style for academic papers, characterized by passive constructions,
present and perfect tenses, literal language, Latinized lexis, jargon,
compounded nominal constructions with empty verbs, lack of
metaphors; (2) a neutral or informal style with defined technical
terms for textbooks, characterized by first person plural construction,
present tense, dynamic active verbs, and basic conceptual
metaphors; (3) an informal, colloquial, warm style for popular
science or art books, characterized by simple grammatical structures, a
simple yet a wide range of vocabulary and stock metaphors to meet
the needs of definitions and illustrations; (4) a familiar, racy, nontechnical style for popular journalism, characterized by surprising
metaphors, short sentences, unconventional punctuation,
colloquialisms, etc. 52
B) In the case of the expressive text (form-focused/
formbetonte Texte), which is undoubtedly SL-oriented, the
major characteristic is the inclusion of an aesthetic component
(blending of the expressive and the aesthetic function of language),
as the author exploits the expressive and associative possibilities of
the language in order to communicate his thoughts in an artistic,
creative way. 53 This means that, with expressive texts, the
translator must focus on both aspectsthe accurate reproduction of
the semantic content and the production of an analogous aesthetic
Texttypologie in Wolfram Wills (ed.), bersetzungswissenschaft. (Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981), pp. 78-80.
52 Peter Newmark, A Textbook, op.cit., pp. 40-41.
53 Katharina Rei, Text-types, Translation Types and Translation Assessment in,
Andrew Chesterman (ed.), Readings in Translation Theory. (Finland: Oy Finn Lectura
Ab, 1989), p. 109.
43

effect. It is the existence of personal components/idiolect or

personal dialect, i.e. expressive elements such as: unusual
collocations,
original
metaphors,
untranslatable
words,
unconventional syntax, neologisms, and strange words (archaisms,
dialect, odd technical terms) that differentiate this kind of text from
the other types. The expressive text-type is exemplified by poetry,
prose, drama, biography, essay, and personal correspondence, which
P. Newmark groups under three headings: (1) serious imaginative
literature which includes lyrical, epic and didactic poetry, short stories,
novellas and novels, and plays, with lyrical poetry being the most
intimate expression; (2) authoritative statements such as political
speeches, documents by ministers or party leaders, statutes or legal
documents, scientific, philosophical and academic works written by
acknowledged authorities, namely texts which illustrate the high
status or the reliability and the linguistic competence of their
authors; (3) autobiography, essays, personal correspondence. 54
C) Operative texts (appeal-focused texts/appellbetonte/
effektbetonte Texte/ also known as instrumental, pragmatic,
vocative texts) contain messages which are intended to persuade
the addresseereadership rather than individual readersto
undertake a certain action that may range from the purchase of a
certain product to voting for a certain political party or leader. Apart
from this persuasive function, the operative/vocative text is also
defined by the immediately comprehensible language in which it is
written, i.e. a language that resorts to a wide range of lexical and
grammatical ingredients such as: socially or personally determined
forms of address (you, tu, du, vous, Sie, usted, tu, voi, dumneavoastr),
grammatical structures based on infinitives, imperatives,
subjunctives, indicative, impersonal and passive constructions, first
or/and family names, titles, tags (please), etc. 55 This means that,
since in such a text both content and form are subordinated to the

54
55

See Peter Newmark, A Textbook, op.cit., pp. 39-40.

Ibid., pp. 41-42.
44

extralinguistic effect which the text is designed to achieve, 56 the

translator must preserve the basic semantic content and, at the same
time, reproduce elements of aesthetic nature in order to make sure
that the persuasive force of the TT matches that of the original. To
the class of operative texts belong: political manifestos and
speeches, hate and smear campaigns, propaganda, advertisements,
publicity, instructions, notices, sermons, as well as other persuasive
writings (requests, cases, theses). 57
Later, owing to the new developments in the field of media, to
the three basic types, Katharina Rei added a fourth, subsidiary
onethe audio-medial texts (multi-medial texts/multimediale
Texte). This multi-medial category comprises texts in which the
verbal content is supplemented by elements in other media. But,
according to her, such texts will simultaneously belong to one of the
other main types, because they form a kind of superstructure over
the other three, as the special requirements of this type take
precedence over whatever basic text-type a given text otherwise
belongs to. 58 Examples of this type are songs, comic strips, plays,
and writing for radio and television, but jingles and TV commercials
must equally not be left out. It goes without saying, that Rei built
here on the aesthetic function of languageone of Jakobsons other
three functions of language and which he called the poetici.e.
Christiane Nord, Text Type and Translation Method, An Objective Approach
to Translation Criticism: Review of Katharina Rei Mglichkeiten und Grenzen der
bersetzungskritik in The Translator 2:1, 1996, p. 83.
57 Nevertheless, since operative texts undoubtedly draw ones attention to their
rhetorical character, we believe that a clear-cut distinction must be made here
between the rhetorical character of informative and expressive texts (lectures,
commemorative speeches, obituaries, official speeches or formal addresses), on
the one hand, and that of operative texts (election addresses/speeches,
propagandist or hate and smear speeches), on the other. Moreover, polemics and
satire are not exclusively the appanages of speeches; they are equally employed in
newspaper commentaries, treatises, written polemic, tendentious fiction and
poetry because their inherent feature is bias and extraliterary commitment.
58 Katharina Rei, Text-types, Translation Types and Translation Assessment in
Chesterman, Andrew (ed.), Readings inop.cit., p. 111.
56

45

one of the intrinsic functions of language is to please the senses both

through its actual or imagined sound-effects as well as through its
metaphors. Onomatopoeia, alliteration, assonance, rhyme, meter,
intonation, stress, all play an important role in the production of
sound-effects, inasmuch as rhythm, balance and contrasts of
sentences, clauses and words. Unlike the expressive textpoetry,
in particularwhere the translator is literally torn between the
reproduction of either the expressive or the aesthetic function of the
ST (ugly literal vs. beautiful free translation), with multi-medial
texts, the translator has to ensure that the TT is equally suited as the
ST for use in the relevant medium. Hence, with the multi-medial
text rich in sound-effects, the translator will have to focus on their
reproduction, even if this implies transfer of relevant language units,
because sound-effects are more important than the sense. The
multi-medial text rich in original metaphor, on the other hand, has
to be preserved intact in translation, because the metaphor is both
an expressive and an aesthetic component.
Judging now by the subject matter on which texts focus, i.e.
the opposition singular denotative vs. multiple recursive and
connotative meaning, the Swiss linguist Werner Koller distinguishes
only two major text-categories: (1) fictional texts (Fiktivtexte),
which are the product of fantasy and focus mainly on society and
individuals, i.e. literary texts in which subject matter and form are
meant to make a whole unit and serve an aesthetic-oriented
communication, and (2) factual texts (Sachtexte), which are
concerned with reality and focus mainly on objects, i.e. pragmatic
texts (an extremely heterogeneous class of texts) meant to serve a
specialist-oriented communication based on technical jargon. 59
Once the text-category and then the text-type have been
identified and before embarking on the actual translation process,
the next step that the translator is supposed to undertake would be
the selection of the appropriate translation method and procedure
See Werner Koller, Einfhrung in die bersetzungswissenschaft. (Wiesbaden: Quelle
& Mayer, 1992), pp. 272-275.
46

59

best applicable to his aim: a semantic translation, if he feels that

SL emphasis is needed, or a communicative translation, if TL
emphasis is more suitable. In broad lines, nowadays, the vast
majority of theorists (illustrating both the linguistic and the stylistic
approach) tend to accept that, generally, the former is better suited
for for expressive texts, i.e. serious literature, while the latter for
informative and vocative/operative texts.
But unfortunately, this was not always so, as in the prelinguistics age of what we nowadays call Translation Studies, i.e. ever
since in the first century BC. Cicero settled the boundaries of
translation (word-for-word vs. sense-for-sense) and up to the
beginning of the nineteenth century, which marks the beginning of
modern linguistics, most of those who became reputed translators,
but also tackled theoretical aspects of translation, were mainly in
favor of the sense-for-sense/free translation, as they believed that
the spirit and not the letter, the message rather than the form
mattered. A quite revolutionary slogan, if we think that some of
them, such as William Tyndale (1536) in England and Etienne
Dolet (1546) in France, even paid with their own lives (were burned
at the stake for heresy) for having disseminated the truth among
people and threatened thus the authority of the Church.
A fundamental change occurred at the turn of the nineteenth
century, when, owing to new developments in the field of cultural
anthropology, certain scholars, obviously starting from the truism
that language is entirely the product of culture, declared that the
linguistic differences between languages were insurmountable (the
existence of many untranslatable cultural words) and,
consequently, that accurate translation is a utopia, an impossibility
(the dichotomy translatability vs. untranslatability). If, however,
despite these barriers, translation is still attempted, then it must be as
literal as possible (see the opinions of Walter Benjamin, Vladimir
Nabokov and of other famous literalists).
Then, when besides the already existing linguistic and stylistic
factors many others were gradually brought into this equation, such
as: the type of text, the purpose of the translation, even the nature of
47

the reader, the two main directions finally shaped up into the
semantic and the communicative translation and, in the end, it
was Peter Newmark who managed under the above-mentioned
headings to reunite all these factors by presenting the basic
translation methods and procedures in the form of a flattened V
diagram:
SL emphasis

TL emphasis
Adaptation

Word-for-word translation
Literal translation

Free Translation
Idiomatic Translation

Faithful translation
Semantic translation

Communicative Translation

__________________________________ 60

Let us have a closer, more detailed look at the methods

grouped under the semantic and the communicative translation!
A) Like its counterpart, the sense-for-sense translation, the
word-for-word translation is a term coined in 46 BC by the Roman
writer Cicero (Libellus de optimo genere oratorumnon verbum de
verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu) and designates a method of
translating which imposes precise fidelity to the wording of the ST.
In other words, it is an interlinear translation (a gloss) or a kind of
semantic transcription in which the TL words, i.e. the closest TL
equivalent, being arranged line by line below their ST corresponding
items, preserve the SL word-order (a violation of the linguistic
norms of the TL), or as G. Steiner defines it in his book After Babel:
It sets a dictionary equivalent from a target-language above each
word in the source-language. Strictly defined, a word-for-word
interlinear is nothing else but a total glossary, set out horizontally in

60

Peter Newmark, A Textbook, op.cit., p. 45.

48

discrete units and omitting the criteria of normal syntax and wordorder in the source language. 61
The purpose of the word-for-word/interlinear translation
is, on the one hand, to provide access to a text for people who
would, linguistically speaking, be inadequately equipped to tackle it.
On the other hand, since it is meant to be read in conjunction with
the original text, the word-for-word translation functions as a crib
and throws light on the mechanics of the SL (a useful technique for
illustrating how the syntax of a foreign language works).
B) Literal translation is often taken for a synonym of the
word-for-word translation, which is quite untrue. As a pretranslation process/strategy, which indicates the problems that are
still to be solved, literal translation is, like the related notion, an
out-of-the-context translation of the SL lexical words, which
observes the TL syntactical patterns, or as one of its champions,
Nabokov, defined and characterized it in the Foreword to his own
translation of A. S. Pushkins Eugene Onegin, it is a rendering, as
closely as the associative and syntactical capacities of another
language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original. 62 On a
more philosophical level, Walter Benjamin, a defender of the
principle of untranslatability, believes that the kinship of languages is
more clearly highlighted in a literalist approach to translation.
However, among modern literary translators, the number of those
who would consider literal translation to be a suitable procedure, is
fairly small, and Eugene Nidas words seem to fully support their
standpoint:
Since no two languages are identical, either in the
meanings given to the corresponding symbols or in the ways in
which such symbols are arranged in phrases and sentences, it
stands to reason that there can be no absolute correspondence
George Steiner, After, op.cit., p. 308.
Vladimir Nabokov, Foreword, in A. S. Pushkin Eugene Onegin, (editied and
translated by Vladimir Nabokov, 4 vols.). (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1964/1975), p. viii.
49
61
62

between languages. Hence there can be no fully exact translations.

The total impact of a translation may be reasonably close to the
original, but there can be no identity in detail. 63

Moreover, the reputed theorist Andr Lefevere considers

that, because of the impossibility of finding direct TL equivalents for
SL items, the literal approach to translating poetry has severe
limitations and at least on an artistic level is in practice unworkable.
C) Traditionally, faithful translation is understood as a
translation that bears a strong resemblance with the ST in terms of
either a literal reproduction of the source meaning or a successful
communication of the spirit of the original text, 64 but within the
constraints of the TL grammatical structures. According to Peter
Newmark, 65 in order to be completely faithful to the intentions and
the text-realization of the original writer, this translation procedure
dogmatically and uncompromisingly transfers into the TL cultural
words as well as grammatical and lexical deviations from the SL
norms.
D) If, apart from the faithful, precise reproduction of the
contextual meaning and the successful communication of the
spirit of the original, the translator also insists on the rendering of
the STs aesthetic value (the beautiful and natural sound, the form)
as closely as TL norms will allow, then we can speak about a truly
semantic translation. As it has already been mentioned before, this
translation procedure treats the original words as sacred, allowing no
interference whatsoever with the text on the part of the translator,
i.e. all inconsistencies, ambiguities and errors will be faithfully
reproduced. Hence this procedure is usually appropriate for the
translation of all those texts in which the language of the ST is as
important as the subject matter, be they literary, technical, or
scientific texts.
Eugene Nida, Toward a Science, op.cit., p. 156.
See Mark Shuttleworth and Moira Cowie, Dictionary, op.cit., p. 57.
65 Peter Newmark, A Textbook, op.cit., p. 46.
50
63
64

E) Adaptation (on the communicative level), the opposite of

the word-for-word translation, refers to any TT in which a
particularly free translation strategy/procedure has been adopted.
Since it is a reader-oriented translation, adaptation implies that
during the translation process a considerable amount of changes
have been brought to the original text, i.e. a re-writing/re-wording of
it has occurred, in order to make the text more suitable for
consumption by a specific audience (e.g. children), or to highlight a
particular purpose behind the translation. Generally, theorists agree
on the fact that adaptation cannot be considered a faithful
translation, that it is rather a type of pseudotranslation. Vinay and
Darbelnet describe adaptation as a type of oblique translation,
which means that it does not rely on the existence of structural and
conceptual parallels between SL and TL, in other words, we can
resort to this strategy/procedure whenever the situation referred to
in the ST does not actually exist in the target culture. Then, a kind of
situational equivalence must be achieved, namely ST elements will
be replaced by TL items, which in some way serve the same
function, and so become equivalent. For example, a reference to
cricket as a popular sport in England could be replaced in a French
translation by a reference to the Tour de France. 66
F) Free translation, also known as the sense-for-sense
translation, is generally more TL-oriented than the literal and the
word-for-word translation, in other words, attention is paid
exclusively to the subject matter without a reproduction of the
manner, as the TT must produce a natural reading. Despite having
being hailed for centuries in the history of translation as the
appropriate translation strategy/procedure in the free-vs.-literal
dichotomy, nowadays it is generally agreed that the two translation
strategies no longer form a binary contrast. Thus, in P. Newmarks
See Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet, Comparative Stylistics of French and English:
A Methodology for Translation. (Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 1995, pp. 31-39.
51

66

opinion, for instance, free translation is nothing but a paraphrase

much longer than the original, a so-called intralingual translation,
often prolix and pretentious, and not translation at all. 67
G) The idiomatic approach/translation is a strategy similar
to dynamic equivalence and produces a translation that reads as
naturally as the original text, in other words, it strives to reproduce
the originals impact on the target audience. The product faithfully
reproduces the meaning of the original text, but it is expressed in the
natural form of the TL. It is a translation which reads like a text
originally composed in the TL. This can be achieved by careful
linguistic reformulation and paraphrase, as well as by the need to
make explicit for target readers information that was only implicitly
contained in the ST, but, on the other hand, P. Newmark warns the
translator that, by resorting to colloquialisms and idioms where these
do not exist in the original, he runs the risk of distorting nuances of
meaning.
H) The communicative translation aims at rendering the
exact meaning of the SL text in a language acceptable and
comprehensible to the TL readership. By attempting to achieve a
balance between subject matter and style, the translator intends to
produce the same effect on the TL reader as was produced by the
original on the SL reader. Unlike semantic translation where all
corrections are strictly forbidden, communicative translation
allows the translator greater freedom to interpret the ST, smooth
over irregularities of style, eliminate all ambiguity, and correct factual
errors. On the other hand, it is also a type of cultural transposition,
which involves the substitution for ST expressions of their
contextually/situationally appropriate cultural equivalents in the
TL. 68
Peter Newmark, A Textbook, op.cit., pp. 46-47.
Sndor Hervey & Ian Higgins, Thinking Translation: A Course in Translation Method:
French into English. (London: Routledge, 1992), p. 248.
52
67
68

Apart from these eight fundamental translation methods/

procedures that theorists generally agree upon nowadays, despite the
more or less different alternative contrasts they propose to the
classical free vs. literal dichotomydynamic vs. formal equivalence (Eugene
Nida), covert vs. overt translation (Juliane House), direct vs. indirect
translation (Ernst-August Gutt), acceptability vs. adequacy (Gideon
Toury), domesticating vs. foreignizing translation (Lawrence Venuti)
Peter Newmark 69 identifies at least five more, minor translation
methods that are worth mentioning, such as:
1) Service translation/inverse translation is a translation,
either written or spoken, which is done from the translators native
language into another language and which is clearly motivated by
pedagogical reasons. Unlike in previous ages when it was generally
considered an exercise mainly in prose translation, i.e. the Englishspeaking student was asked to translate some passage into Latin or
Greek, today the use of inverse translation in English-speaking
countries is fairly limited, as the relatively small volume of
translation from English into other target languages can be covered
by native speakers of that TL. However, in other parts of the world
service translation is more frequently used because of the huge
amount of translation into English that the native translators have to
cope with. The perfect style is less pressing in the case of certain
texts, for e.g. tourist information, which, otherwise, explains the
many translation blunders in pamphlets and brochures for tourists,
but when it comes to more sensitive texts, many of these
shortcomings can be overcome by team translating or by having the
TTs edited by a TL native speaker (the case of serious literature).
2) In the plain prose translation of poems and poetic drama,
the format of the ST changes, i.e. stanzas become paragraphs and
prose punctuation is adopted. In consequence, in this so-called
guide to the original, the sense/content of the work is reproduced
69

See Peter Newmark, A Textbook, op.cit., pp. 52-53.

53

accurately, original metaphors and culture words are retained and

translated as such, while all sound-effects (rhyme, rhythm) disappear,
truncating the artistic value altogether.
3) Information translation is applicable to non-literary texts
only, since it is a translation procedure that is exclusively focused on
the transmission of information. Hence, without being regarded as
some kind of paraphrase, it may summarize the SL text by
rearranging the information in a more logical form.
4) The cognitive translation is rather a pre-translation
procedure, appropriate in a difficult and complicated stretch of text.
It reproduces the information in a SL text by converting the SL
grammar to its normal TL transpositions, i.e. figurative language is
reduced to literal language.
5) Academic translation (a practice in some British
universities) reduces a SL text to an elegant, idiomatic, educated TL
version by replacing the expressiveness of the original writer with
modish colloquialisms.
Concluding on the relationship between the text-types and the
selection of the right translation method, Peter Newmark admits
that all above-mentioned methods of translation are restricted, if
taken in their individuality. But, says he,
translation theory . . . is not concerned with restricted translation.
Whilst principles have been, and will be, proposed for dealing with
recurrent problems (translation rules), a general theory cannot
propose a single method, but must be concerned with the full range
of text-types and their corresponding translation criteria, as well as
the major variables involved. 70

70

Peter Newmark, Approaches, op.cit., p. 12.

54

5. The Translators Competence

Having focused in our first lecture on the translators status, i.e.

definition, general description of his trans-linguistic activity, and
succinct listing of the prerequisites of a translator, we believe that it
is the right moment now for a more detailed analysis of the latter, in
order to be able to answer satisfactorily a complex question like:
What need translators know and be able to do in order to translate
accurately?
It has taken people a very long time to begin to realize how
wrong they had been in assuming that good command of a foreign
language automatically entails being a proficient translator. The truth
is that such an assumption not merely distorts, but, moreover,
minimizes the otherwise complex activity of translating, as, we have
seen in the previous lectures, the process of translation must not be
reduced to a simple conversion of a text from one language to
another, a kind of re-wording of a SL text in a target language. It is
an activity which presupposes the existence of translation
competence.
Gideon Toury defines translation competence as the total
system of ST-TT relationships which could theoretically be
manifested in a translation, but which will to a large extent remain
unrealized. In other words, translational competence is the linguistic,
stylistic and literary resource, which a translator will draw on while
searching for translation al solutions. It is the translators ability to
analyze, compare and convert texts belonging to two cultural
systems, to mediate between two distinctive languages and cultures
by permanently establishing and re-establishing relationships which,
otherwise, have never existed. In doing so, the entire process of first
reading and then interpreting the ST becomes a TL-oriented cultural
activity, a translation-oriented one.
On the one hand, it is indeed true that the translator processes
a text and, as such, he must acquire the knowledge and skills
55

required in monolingual text-processing. In doing so, he does not

differ from the monolingual communicator who is simultaneously a
sender and a receiver and whose process of simple, unidirectional
communication covers nine steps:
(1) sender selects message and code;
(2) sender encodes message;
(3) sender selects channel (speech or writing);
(4) sender transmits signal containing message;
(5) receiver receives signal containing message;
(6) receiver recognizes code;
(7) receiver decodes signal;
(8) receiver retrieves message, and
(9) receiver comprehends message.
However, we should not forget that actual communication
necessarily implies response from the receiver and, thus, the latter
becomes himself a sender directing another message to the initial
sender, who becomes then, in turn, a receiver. Consequently,
processing a message turns into a cyclic and cooperative activity, in
which sender and receiver switch roles successively.
But since translating has been generally defined as the
interlingual activity of rendering a message from one language into
another, with translation, bilingual communication implies decoding
the SL text and re-encoding it in the TL before directing it at the
final consumer, i.e. the TL reader. Theorists fully agree with the
existence of a similitudethe same nine-step modelbetween
monolingual communication and translating:
(1) translator receives signal 1 (utterance containing message);
(2) translator recognizes code 1;
(3) translator decodes signal 1;
(4) translator retrieves message;
(5) translator comprehends message;
(6) translator selects code 2;
(7) translator encodes message by means of code 2;
(8) translator selects channel, and
56

(9) translator transmits signal 2 (utterance containing the initial

message encoded in the TL).
Yet, there are a few points of difference between monolingual
communication and the activity of translating:
one single participant and one single message are involved in
this activity,
reception and transmission employ two distinctive codes (SL
and TL) and,
given the impossibility of always reaching a 100 %
equivalence, the initial message might sometimes be slightly
altered, so we can also speak about two sets of content. 69
Nevertheless, despite these differences, what translators and
monolingual communicators do, or rather must possess, besides the
decoding skills of reading and encoding skills of writing, are the
knowledge and the skills that are common to all communicators, i.e.
the knowledge-base, but unlike ordinary communicators,
translators must acquire this knowledge-base in at least two
languages.
I. According to Johnson and Whitelock, 71 the translators
knowledge-base includes five kinds of knowledge: target language
knowledge, text-type knowledge, source language knowledge, subject
area (real-world) knowledge, and contrastive knowledge, i.e.
knowledge of both linguistic (semantic, syntactic and pragmatic) and
literary (all type of subject matter, not restricted to literature only)
origin, or, to put it in other words an integration between bilingual
competence and expertise.
Theorists fully agree that the knowledge-base applies equally
to all translators, professional or amateur, technical or non-technical
and it seems indisputable that the translator must know how
statements are structured (semantic knowledge), how clauses can
be combined, synthesized to carry content and analyzed to retrieve
69
71

See Roger T. Bell, Translation., op.cit., pp. 17-19.

Apud Bell, Translation, op.cit., p. 36.
57

content embedded in them (syntactic knowledge), and how the

clause can be realized as information-bearing text and the text
decomposed into the clause (pragmatic knowledge).
Lack of knowledge in any of the of the above-mentioned cases
would mean that the translator could not translate, i.e. without
semantic and syntactic knowledge, even literal meaning would
escape the translator, whereas without pragmatic knowledge,
meaning would be limited to the literal, semantic sense carried out
by utterances which, despite formal cohesion, would lack functional
coherence and communicative value.
So, if we were to draw up a list of the kinds of knowledge and
skills (bilingual competence and expertise) minimally necessary to
ensure good translation, the list would and must consist of:
1.
SL knowledge, i.e. its syntactic rule system, its vocabulary and
semantics, as well as its text-creating systems;
2.
TL knowledge, equivalent to that in the SL;
3.
text-type knowledge;
4.
domain knowledge;
5.
contrastive knowledge of each of the above;
6.
the decoding of texts, i.e. reading and comprehending of SL
texts, and
7.
the encoding of TL texts. 72
II. An alternative point of view (Swain 1985) replaces the
above-mentioned approach of the fusion of bilingual competence
and expertise by communicative competence, which reorganizes
and reduces the already mentioned areas of knowledge and skills to
only four, though with some shifts of emphasis:
1. Grammatical competence: knowledge of the rules of the
code, including lexis, phonetics/spelling, morphology and syntax, i.e.
the knowledge and skills required to understand and express the
literal meaning of utterances;

72

Ibid., pp. 38-40.

58

2.

3.

4.

Sociolinguistic competence: knowledge of and ability to

produce and understand utterances appropriately in context, i.e.
as constrained by topic, the status of participants, purposes of
the interaction, etc.;
Discourse competence: the ability to combine form and
meaning in order to achieve unified texts in different genres
(cohesion in form and coherence in meaning);
Strategic competence: the mastery of communication
methods and strategies, either to improve communication or to
compensate for breakdowns in communication. 73

However, to limit translational competence to mere

bilingual linguistic competence and expertise, or communicative
competence, would mean to reduce the all-encompassing process of
translating to linguistic exercise only, without taking into
consideration the impact upon the quality of the output of other, let
us say collateral factors, i.e. the blending of both internal and
external factors such as: psychological factors, thorough
knowledge of translation theory, as well as a thorough text
analysis from linguistic, syntactic and stylistic points of view.
We shall focus here only on the first two, as the thirdthe
thorough analysis of the text submitted to translationis at the
same time one of the major stages in translating and, hence, will be
dealt with in the subsequent chapter.
A) Psychological factors
A translator will always think and talk about translation from inside
the translation process, obviously knowing how it is done. He
processes the real-world problems involved by providing solutions
to those problems. However, the dedicated and conscientious
translator will be fully aware of the limitations on those solutions, as
he/she knows from his/her own experience that no translation will
ever be a perfectly reliable guide to the original.
73

Ibid., pp. 41-42.

59

Nonetheless, the translators activity of doing research,

networking, translating words, phrases, and registers, and finally
editing the translation, also implies empathy with both the text and
its author in order to avoid unwanted, subjective judgment, although
he/she cannot totally exclude this subjective factor in the attempt to
achieve accuracy or equivalence or fidelity with the SL text.
The truth is that, despite their reliability and professionalismit
is unethical for the translator to distort the meaning of the source
text, as they must have no personal point of view with the
translated text, translators, too, are but human beings, with
opinions, attitudes, beliefs, and feelings. Moreover, since translation
presupposes making a choice, i.e. selecting the right term from a
list of synonyms, it is here, in this very selection of the appropriate
term that the subjective factor becomes manifest. To avoid such
sliding, empathy must combine with experience and thorough
knowledge of translation theory.
B) Knowledge of translation theory
A translator requires thorough knowledge of both literary and nonliterary textual criticism, since he has to evaluate the quality of the
text before he can decide how to interpret and then translate it. Here
are a few general and common sense guidelines, generally accepted
by theorists and worth taking into account:
Ever since we can indeed speak about translation theory, all
kinds of more or less false distinctions have been made between
literary and technical translation. Thus, some theorists state that the
technical translator is mainly concerned with content and the literary
translator with form. Consequently, the technical translation must be
accurate and literal, whereas the literary translation, being artistic,
must be free. Other theorists, however, assert the opposite, namely
the importance of literary translation lies in the formal (stylistic)
elements and that of non-literary translation in the factual
information, and therefore the former must be rendered closely,
while the latter freely. Irrespective of the above-mentioned facts, the
general tendency has always been for people to mistakenly put
60

literary translation on a pedestal while disdainfully regarding

technical/non-literary translation as less important, or easier.
The basic distinction is, thus, not between literary and nonliterary texts, but rather between well and poorly written texts,
between effective and ineffective writing. If a text is well written,
whether it is literary or scientific, historical or technological, its
formal components are of prime importance, and the translator
must respect them and fully account for them in his version.74
The translator is allowed to perform a double translation, first
intra-, then interlingual, whenever he feels that the original text is
unsatisfactorily written.
The translator is . . . entitled to treat the formal components
of a badly written text, whether popular or technical, with
considerable freedom, since by replacing clumsy with elegant
syntactic structures, by removing redundant or repetitive
items, by reducing the clich and the vogue-word to a plainer
statement, by clarifying the emphasis and tightening up the
sentence, he is attempting to give the texts semantic content
its full value. 75

A translation is intended for a target language reader and

therefore the translator has to assist the reader, i.e. he/she has to
render the text accessible to the reader, even if this means to explain
allusions, supply reasons, emphasize contrasts, find some pattern in
non-sense, and make the style less dense and intellectualized.
The translator should always write in his own idiolect and
never use words or phrases that sound unnatural or artificial;
otherwise the product will lack coherence.
Whenever the translator encounters misstatements belonging
to the extralinguistic reality in texts where the informative function is
dominant, it is his/her responsibility to either correct or gloss them.
Although translation is regarded as an exercise in synonymy,
indiscriminate, excessive and unreasonable replacement of obvious
74
75

Peter Newmark, Approaches, op.cit., p. 127.

Ibid., p. 127.
61

equivalents with synonyms must be avoided. Moreover, since

paraphrase, too, is a form of extended synonymy, which inevitably
brings about an expansion and, consequently, a diffusion of the text,
the translator is entitled to resort to it only when an item of
terminology (technical, cultural, institutional, scientific) cannot be
handled in any other way, as otherwise paraphrase becomes too
easily periphrasis.
The principle of equivalent-effect according to which the
translator should produce the same effect on the TL readers as the
SL author produced on his own readers is one of the main guide
lines stipulated by translation theory. Ironically, it is so little
recognized by school and university teachers who, according to
Peter Newmark, either favour a stylistic bias, which produces a
high-flown travesty dedicated to the spirit of the original, or a
content bias (ideas not words) which reproduces information,
shedding emphasis, expressiveness or persuasiveness, and reduces all
meaning to cognitive meaning. 76 What the dedicated translator
should really tend to achieve is a blending of the cognitive and the
affective element in language, as:
. . . a translator who aims at something other than producing
a similar response cannot claim to be attempting a full
translation, but this does not mean that all translations should
never sound like translations. Thus if the SL author deviates
widely from the collocational, lexical, syntactic, metrical,
prosodic, semantic norms of his own language, one would
expect the TL text to do likewise, and to have the flavour of a
translation . . . The more important the text, the more literal
the translation. 77

In normal literary translation, the generally accepted principle

is that one should translate ideas and not words. In doing so, the
emphasis is on connotation, not denotation, and the context is the
overall factor which determines meaning:

76
77

Ibid., p. 132.
Ibid., p. 133.
62

To be accurate, one translates words that are used in context,

that is, words that are lexically conditioned and constrained
by collocation and connotation, grammatically by syntax,
intonationally by word-order, sometimes phonetically by
assonance, alliteration, onomatopoeia, and moreover they are
normally referentially; one does not translate words in
isolation, or assume they are being used in their primary

sense, unless they appear randomly. 78

Translation has also been defined as an interlingual transfer of
significance that is exclusively based on choice. Practice shows us
that, on the one hand, the greater the difference in lexis and
grammar between the SL and the TL, the greater the choice the
translator has to face and, on the other hand, the stronger the
cognitive or representational function in the SL text, the lesser the
degree of choice. Moreover, the better the translator understands the
linguistic meaning of a text, the less choice the translator has in
selecting and formulating his words. Contrary, however, the more
difficult the meaning, the more variations (and variants) are likely to
appear. Consequently, the better a translator understands the
referential meaning, the easier it is for him/her to transfer it into the
TL and, the more obscure the referential meaning, the more the
translator has to hold on to the SL words.
All good translators have to meet three basic requirements
obligatorily set in this order: thorough knowledge of their own
language, of the subject and of the target language. Any flaws in the
first prerequisite are likely to generate gross mistakes in the second
and the third.
A good and reliable translation depends on the right selection
of the appropriate method of translation. Theorists generally agree
on three basic translation procedures:
a) the interpretation and analysis of the SL text;
b) translation procedures which are either direct, or based
on SL and TL corresponding syntactic structures, or
78

Ibid., p. 135.
63

through the tertium comparationis (an underlying logical

interlanguage); 79
c) the reformulation of the text in keeping with the original
writers intention, the prevailing TL norms, the culturaleducational structure of the readership the translated text is
targeted at, the readers expectation, etc. 80
Nonetheless, it is worth mentioning here that there is no
such thing as the best translation of a text, as according to
Eugenio Coseriu, a universally applicable translation ideal is a
contradictio in adiecto. There is only the best translation of one
certain text addressed to a well-defined readership, serving a
particular purpose at a certain historical moment. 81

Tertium comparationis is a term used by certain theorists to denote a theoretical

language which mediates between the SL and the TL, that is, which might allow us
to shift from an expression in language A to an expression in language B by
deciding that both are an equivalent to an expression of a metalanguage C. Such a
metalanguage functions as a semantic common denominator via which the ST
meaning, which is understood as an INVARIANT that exists independently of the
ST meaning, is simply transferred from the ST to the TT. The acceptance of a
tertium comparationis implies an inherent belief in unlimited translatability.
Synonymous terms are: das Gemeinte/intended meaning (Erwin Koschmieder), the
mediating language (Anton Popovi) and interlingual (in Machine Translation).
80 See Peter Newmark, Approaches, op.cit., p. 144.
81 See Eugenio Coseriu, Falsche und richtige Fragestellungen in der
bersezungstheorie in Wolfram Wills (ed.). bersetzungswissenschaft. (Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981), p. 46.
64
79

6. Stages in Translating

What has been said so far about translation as a process undoubtedly

throws light on the complexity of this all-encompassing activity of
transferring a segment of written text from the SL to the TL. It is a
process that, first, presupposes reading and comprehending the SLT,
i.e. the physiological and psychological activities of receiving stimuli,
decoding, and comprehending information, and, secondly, in
reversed order, the psychological and physiological activities
involved in writing the TLT. Moreover, since during the translation
process the translator must in most cases make his choices from a
multitude of possibilities (synonymic lexical and grammatical
structures), these initial subjective decisions will determine
subsequent decisions and, consequently, the final product. So, even
if the translation process involves language, it cannot occur without
drawing on psycho- and sociolinguistics. The activity occurs in the
translators mind (psychological aspects of language use) and within
the larger framework of the cultural contexts of the two languages
involved in the process (social aspects of language use).
For that reason, needles to say, the activity of translating
involves a series of logical stages, of which theorists have generally
agreed upon to be seven in number. The Romanian scholars Leon
Levichi and Andrei Banta, for example, subscribe to this number.
The former simply suggests seven general stages, or rather steps,
which every novice must necessarily pass through in order to evolve
into an accomplished translator 82 , whereas the latter recommends
the Translation-Oriented Text Analysis (TOTA), a multilateral and
global analysis of the SLT, which emphasizes and takes into account
all the psycholinguistic aspects of the translating process. According
to A. Banta, of the seven stages, the first five correspond to

82

See Leon Levichi, Indrumar., op cit. pp. 250-1.

65

various kinds of analysis on all levels (which no other reader, but

a translator would undertake). 83
But irrespective of the number of stages that theorists
generally suggest, the translating process is undeniably a process of
analysis and synthesis operating on syntactic, semantic and
pragmatic levels. The process is not a linear one, in the sense that
there is a strict order of the stages. It is an integrated process in
which, although every stage must pass through, the order is not fixed
and back-tracking, revision and cancellation of previous decisions
are the norm rather than the exception. 84
A) Before any detailed syntactic analysis can actually begin, the
translator must necessarily go through two preparatory stages:
acquaintance with the general cultural context (valuable
background information with reference to the epoch, literary
trends, the writers life and his predominant style, etc.) and
a close reading of the whole text to be translated.
For this latter stage, theorists recommend the use of a
competently and amply commented or annotated edition, paying
special attention to the content/subject matter, grasping the authors
intention, identifying modality and style, etc. It goes without saying
that a single reading of the text as a whole will not suffice. A second
close reading of the text, focusing on smaller portions of the text
chapters, subchapters, single pages and paragraphswill
indisputably pave the way for the syntactic analysis.
During the syntactic analysis, when practically no sharp line
can be drawn between grammar and lexis, the translators activity
will be similar to the parsers, as he will have to analyze any
sentence/clause for which analysis appears necessary. Thus, he will
have to examine:

See Andrei Banta and Elena Croitoru, Didactica traducerii. (Bucuresti: Teora,
1998), p. 57-9 and Elena Croitoru, Interpretation and Translation. (Galai: PortoFranco, 1996), pp. 121-2.
84 Roger T. Bell, Translation, op.cit., p.45.
66
83

at sentence level: the constitutive clauses and the governing

relationships;
at clause level: the grammatical structures and the underlying
phrases;
at phrase level: the fundamental m h q structures (modifier,
head word, qualifier) and
at word level: the lexical items.
Once this analysis is over, the sentence/clause can continue
through the process to the next step, that of identifying and then
matching lexical items. If, by chance, the identified lexical items can
be matched with items already stored in the translators memory, it
exits the syntactic stage and enters that of semantic processing.
However, this is only the default route. Otherwise, if no matching
can be achieved, the translator must make increased efforts to
comprehend the content of the text, to make sense of the lexical
items that cannot be matched with those already stored in his
memory.
B) Once the meaning of the unknown lexical items has been grasped
(with the help of mainly monolingual dictionaries, thesauruses and
the co-text), the translator proceeds to the semantic analysis of the
text, namely he/she attempts to derive the content from the
syntactic structures supplied by the previous stage of analysis. In
doing so, the translator tries to make out what the particular segment
of text is about; what it represents; the logical relationships between
participants, processes, attributes and circumstances (the semantic
framework for any type of situation or pattern of experience
expressed with the help of language); ideational meaning and
propositional content, etc. In other words, by this analysis the
translator must discover what the process is which is being carried
out (it might be also a relationship rather than a genuine action),
who the participants are (both actor and acted-upon) and how they

67

relate to each other in the process. 85 Now that this investigation has
also been completed, the translator can move on to the third stage
of the text analysis, that of the pragmatic level.
B) The pragmatic analysis throws light onto the communicative
function of the SLT. By it the translator tries to identify, on the one
hand, the field covered by the text, the role it is playing in the
communicative activity, what intention the text serves and, on the
other hand, the register features, in other words, the means through
which the communicative function is achieved, such as: the theme
and the rheme, the stylistic characteristics, the elements of
accentuation, the connotations, coherence and lack of coherence,
the degree of formality, politeness or impersonality and, in the case
of a poetic texts, the elements of rhythm and rhyme, along with the
devices which realize them: alliteration, assonances, onomatopoeic
sounds, etc.
The last level of the analysis having been thus completed, the
translator can now proceed to the stage of synthesis, but in a
reversed order, i.e. the processing of the text in the TL begins at
pragmatic level. According to Roger T. Bell, once all the SL
information has been thoroughly analyzed, the translator has to
make important decisions first, as to what to preserve and what
to change, before embarking upon the TL processing of the text
(the actual translation process):
(a)

85

How to deal with the purpose of the original. The

translator may wish to attempt to preserve this or to
alter it. Either way, a decision has to be made on how
to express purpose through the available content or
assuming that the translators plan includes a decision
to shift any of the parameters (e.g. to turn an
informative text into a polemical one), through
different content.

See Ibid. p. 53.

68

(b)

(c)

How to deal with the thematic structure of the original.

Preservation or alteration of the original theme-rheme
relationship demands, as in the case of purpose
above, a decision on the part of the translator and an
awareness of the options available.
How to deal with the style of the original. Again, there
is the choice between attempting to replicate on the
one hand and deciding to adopt a different style on the
other. 86

During the semantic synthesis, the translator works in order

to create the structures that will be able to carry the propositional
content and express the purpose intended by the SL writer. Then the
input passes to the last stage, that of the syntactic synthesis, when
the translator searches for and selects the suitable lexical items in
order to realize the target language text. Finally, the translating
process concludes. The translator returns to the SL text and the
process is repeated over and over again with every new sentence or
clause. It is an activity that shifts continually from reading and
analysis of a SL text to synthesis and writing it in a TL.
Having reached this point, we believe that one more aspect
deserves being mentioned here. It is the series of haunting dilemmas
which most translators have to face and solve before embarking on
the actual process of translating a literary text, namely to:
1. reproduce either the forms or the ideas of the original text;
2. retain the style of the original or adopt a different one;
3. retain or abandon the SL text-form;
4. retain the historical stylistic dimension of the original text or to
render it in contemporary form;
5. produce a text which reads like an original or one which
reads like a translation;

86

Ibid. p. 58.
69

6. add or to omit words, phrases, that is to interfere with the SL

text or to transfer everything faithfully from the source to
the target text. 87
Nonetheless, despite the difficulty of providing a recipe or
of producing commandments for the creation of the perfect
translation, here is a selection of brief but important suggestions
worth observing when translating:
Translation is not a secondary, or a mechanical, but a
creative process which must be raised to the dignity of the
original work.
The translators work is more difficult than that of the
original author.
Both the importance and the difficulty of the translation
have to be grasped.
Translation is a complex task, involving hard work, a great
deal of talent and skill, preparation, knowledge and intuitive
feeling for texts.
Everything can be translated, but if any losses occur they
must be made up for.
The cultural element must be taken into consideration
whenever we appreciate the choices made in any situation of
translation and when we propose our own choices.
Translation involves selecting the appropriate terms in
keeping with an explicitly defined target context.
The translating process involves the steps and stages through
which the translator works while the ST is transformed into
the TT.
The work of the translator consists of the analysis (the
interpretation act), the transformation (rough translation),
and the polishing act (the final production).

87

See Theodore Savory, The Art, op.cit., p. 48f.

70

88

A faithful translation is the one guided by the translationoriented text analysis. It has to meet the same requirements,
structures, patterns and peculiarities to which the author
submitted in creating the original.
The translator is a mediator between two different language
communities, between two intercultural situations of
communication.
The translator must have syntactic, semantic and cultural
knowledge and needs bilingual and bicultural competence.
The translator seeks the universal through the particularity of
languages. 88

Apud Elena Croitoru, Interpretation., op.cit., pp.59-61.

71

Selected Bibliography
Banta, Andrei., Croitoru, Elena. Didactica traducerii. Bucureti: Teora,
1998.
Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies. London and New York:
Routledge, 1991.
Bell, Roger T. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. Harlow:
Longman, 1991.
Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. An Essay in Applied
Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press, 1965.
Chukovsky, Kornei. A High Art. Knoxville: The University of
Tennessee Press, 1984.
Coseriu, Eugenio. Falsche und richtige Fragestellungen in der
bersezungstheorie in Wills, Wolfram. ed. bersetzungswissenschaft. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1981.
Croitoru, Elena. Interpretation and Translation. Galai: Porto-Franco,
1995.
Folena, Gianfranco. Volgarizzare e tradurre: idea e terminologia
della traduzione dal Medio Evo italiano e romanzo
allumanesimo europeo in La Traduzione. Saggi e studi. Trieste:
Edizioni LINT, 1973.
Greere, Anca Luminia. Translating for Business Purposes. Cluj-Napoca:
Dacia, 2003.
Hervey, Sndor & Higgins, Ian. Thinking Translation: A Course in
Translation Method: French into English. London: Routledge, 1992.
Jakobson, Roman. Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics, in
Sebeok, Thomas A., ed. Style in Language. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1960.
Koller, Werner. Einfhrung in die bersetzungswissenschaft. HeidelbergWiesbaden: Quelle & Meyer, 1992.
Lawendowski, Boguslaw P. On Semiotic Aspects of Translation in
Sebeok, Thomas A., ed. Sight, Sound and Sense. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1978.
72

Levichi, Leon. ndrumar pentru traductorii din limba englez n limba

romn. Bucureti: Ed. tiinific i Enciclopedic, 1975.
Lev, Ji. Die literarische bersetzung: Theorie einer Kunstgattung.
Frankfurt am Main-Bonn: Athenum Verlag, 1969.
Mota, Doina. Elements of Translation Theory. Universitatea din
Bucureti, 1989.
Mounin, Georges. Les belles infidels. Paris: Cahiers du Sud, 1955.
Nabokov, Vladimir. Foreword, in Pushkin, A. S. Eugene Onegin,
(editied and translated by Vladimir Nabokov, 4 vols.), London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964/1975.
Newmark, Peter. Approaches to Translation. Hemel Hempstead:
Phoenix ELT, 1988.
Nida, Eugene Toward a Science of Translating: With Special
Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible
Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964.
Nida, Eugene and Taber, Charles R. The Theory and Practice of
Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969/1982.
Nord, Christiane. Text Type and Translation Method, An
Objective Approach to Translation Criticism: Review of
Katharina Rei Mglichkeiten und Grenzen der bersetzungskritik
in The Translator 2:1, 1996.
Rei, Katharina. Textbestimmung und bersetzungsmethode:
Entwurf einer Texttypologie in Wills, Wolfram. ed.
bersetzungswissenschaft. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981.
Rei, Katharina. Text-types, Translation Types and Translation
Assessment in Chesterman, Andrew. ed. Readings in
Translation Theory. Finland: Oy Finn Lectura Ab, 1989.
Rei, Katharina and Vermeer, Hans J. Grundlegung einer allgemeiner
Translationstheorie. Tbingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1991.
Savory, Theodore. The Art of Translation. Boston: The Writer, Inc.,
1968.
Steiner, George. After Babel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.
Strig, Hans Joachim. ed. Das Problem des bersetzens. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972.
73

Shuttelworth, Mark and Cowie, Moira. Dictionary of Translation Studies.

ST Jerome Publishing, 1999.
Venuti, Lawrence. The Translators Invisibility. (London: Routledge,
1995.
Vinay, Jean-Paul and Darbelnet, Jean. Comparative Stylistics of French
and English: A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995.
Vitsaxis, Vasilis. Poetica. Bucureti: Omonia, 2000.
Wills, Wolfram. ed. bersetzungswissenschaft. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981.

74