Translation theory before the XX century

The term: Translation

Transfero/translatum (translation)
Traduco (traduzione)

It refers to:
1. A general discipline
2. The process of translation
3. The final product

Translating is a choice-making process and a dialectic process. Tends towards normativity, but is
always pragmatic. The strategies are within a normative framework but the choices of those strategies
are not normative, because they depend on the translator.

History of Translation theory before the XX Century

First distinction: “word for word” (literal) and “sense for sense”.
Cicero (46 a.C.) De optimo genere oratorum. He translated Greek speeches of the 4° century: “I did
not translate them as an interpreter (interpres), but as an orator, keeping the same ideas and forms, or
as one might say, the “figures” or thought, but in language which conforms to our usage. And in doing
so, I did not hold it necessary to render word for word, but I preserved the general style and force of
the language”.

HORACE Ars Poetica

Translation aims to produce an aesthetically pleasing and creative poetic text.
St Jerome cites Cicero to justify his translation on the Bible (the Latin Vulgata). He revised and
corrected earlier Latin translations of the Greek New Testament, and translated the Old testament
from the Hebrew. Sacred texts are different from non religious texts. “I n translating from the Greek –
except of course in the case of the Holy Scripture, where even the syntax contains a mystery – render
not word-for-word, but sense-for-sense”. Debate between free and literal translation has continued
until modern times.

Translation of religious texts:

1. William Tyndale (1536): first translation of the Bible in English, which became the basis of the
King James Bible (who approved the Bible)
2. Etienne Dolet and his translation from Plato “rien du tou” nothing at all
3. Luther: translates the Bible in vernacular german, the language of the ordinary people
Arbitramus hominem iustificari ex fide absque operis (L’uomo si salva dalla fede al di fuori delle
opere). We hold that man is justified without the work of law only through faith. (Translation of
Luther in English).
XVII Century England: translation becomes an exercise in creativity:
1. Cowley translates Pindaric Odes (1640). “I have taken, left out and added what I pelase.” He
proposes the term imitation fot this very free method of translating.
2. John Dryden (1631-1700): preface to his translation of Ovid’s Epistles, identifies three types of
translation:

Metaphrase: word for word and line by line

Paraphrase: the words are not so strictly followed as the sense of the text (sense for sense)
Imitation: what is now called “adaptation”
A new perspective: F. SCHLEIERMACHER
On the different methods of translating (1813)
Romantic interpretation of translation: his interests is in the relationship between the source text writer
and the target text reader. The true translator has only two options: “either the translator leaves the
writer in peace as much as possible and moves the reader toward him, or he leaves the reader in
peace as much as possible and moves the writer towards him”. For him, the best way is to move the
reader towards the writer.

Translation theory in the XX century

Three generations:
1. Science of Translation (word)
2. Translation Theory (text)
3. Translation Studies (culture and beyond)
Key Word: EQUIVALENCE
Roman Jakobson (1959) On linguistic aspects of translation
1. Intralingual translation: reformulation in the same language
2. Interlingual translation: between 2 different languages
3. Intersemiotic translation: written to non-verbal transposition
“The translator recodes and transmits a message received from another source. Thus, translation involves two
equivalent messages in two different codes.”
“Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics.”

Science of translation (1950-60)

Scientific approach: systematic analysis of translation based on key linguistic issues (langue);
influenced by Russian formalists. Translation is a linguistic operation: from language to language.
Highly normative and prescriptive (prescriptive TS). Establishes criteria on how to produce a tran<slation which
is EQUIVALENT (has the same value) to the original.
Source oriented: translation is ancillary to original. Static and synchronic.

Translation strategies (Taylor, Malone)

Taylor presents nine main strategies to translate at a structural and lexicogrammatical level. The first eight are in
pairs (mirror images of one another):

• Equation and substitution;

• Divergence and convergence;
• Amplification and reduction;
• Diffusion and condensation;
• Reordering.
Equation and substitution:

Equation (literal translation): the most obvious forms are loan words, that is foreign (English) words used in
Italian without any change. Relax, weekend, supermarket, software, rap, videogame, corner etc.
Another form of equation is the calque, when the target language (Italian) adapts a term to its morpho-
phonological structure.Chattare, crossare, cliccare etc.
However, equation in general means that a term/phrase/sentence should be translated by its one-to-one
equivalent (word-for-word); 
Beautiful girl = bella ragazza
But, beware of false cognates (false friends)

Substitution is the antithesis of equation: this implies that, for several possible reasons, literal translation is not
possible.
Semantic level: proverbs, idioms etc.
A straw in the wind = un segno premonitore
An early bird = persona mattiniera
Up my street = di mio gradimento
To pull someone’s leg = prendere in giro qualcuno
Not in the same street as somebody = di gran lunga inferiore a qualcuno
The straw that breaks the camel’s back = la goccia che fa traboccare il vaso

Divergence and convergence

Divergence: to choose a suitable term from a range of alternatives. 

The verb ‘girare’: to turn, to switch on, to pass on, to travel, to invest, to spin, to circle, to twist etc.
The adverb ‘proprio’: 
Sei proprio tu? Non sono proprio stanco! Proprio adesso?
Big, large or great? To make or to do? 
Accountant = commercialista, ragioniere, contabille?

Convergence is the opposite of divergence. 

You: tu, voi, lei, Voi etc. <<
Of course, all the examples of divergence, for example English-Italian are examples of convergence from Italian
into English or vice versa.
E – I accountant: commercialista, ragioniere o contabile? DIVERGENCE
I – E commercialista, ragioniere, contabile: account CONVERGENCE

Amplification and reduction

“The source-language word may express a concept which is totally unknown in the target culture. The concept in
question may be abstract or concrete; it may relate to a religious belief, a social custom, or even a type of food.
Such concepts are often referred to as “culture specific” (Mona Baker, 1992)
Amplification: the translator needs to add elements in order to make the translated text clear:

• Translator’s note (endnote, footnote, bracketed addition);

• Sometimes the SL takes for granted certain elements which are not present in the TL (cultural, semantic,
linguistic aspects) so the translator must add information;
• But, be careful with amplification: sometimes it can be abused and the information can be distorted. An
example pointed out by Di Sabato (1993): political problems was officially translated with sviluppi di
Tangentopoli.
Reduction: omitting elements because they are redundand, obscure, useless or misleading.
Carta geografica = map;
Petrol station assistant = benzinaio;
Bus driver = autista.
\
Diffusion and condensation

These two could seem similar to the previous techniques. But amplification and reduction relate to adding or
subtracting elements because they are helpful or superfluous.
Diffusion and condensation are concerned with more linguistically-bound reasons. 

Example of diffusion:
Magari! I does not exist in English so you have to translate it with: if only I could, would that it were, I wish that
were the case.
The Italian conditional can express many different meanings differently from English.
Journalistic style:
I ladri avrebbero rapinato alter banche is not a conditional form.
The English equivalent can’t be expressed with a literal translation (the thieves would rob another banks) but:
the thieves are said/reported/alleged to have robbed other banks.

I. Condensation, of course, is the other way round.

Examples:
Far vedere = to show;
To look at =guardare;
To make up = inventare;
To make up for = compensare.

II. Reordering: is similar to substitution, but acts at syntactical level. Reordering primarily deals with
syntax, when you have to reorder/invert words. Reordering is not always permitted:
Ex: high pressure:
Pressione alta = REORDERING
Alta pressione = NO REORDERING
Be careful to sentence structure in English and Italian.
EX: something terrible happened yesterday.
Ieri è successa una disgrazia.
È successa una disgrazia ieri. 
Una disgrazia è successa ieri (less usual, but it depends on prosody)
A very frequent mistake/error when writing in English is the total respect of Italian syntax.

Equation suggests automatic equivalence;

Substitution in used when automatic equivalence is impossible;
Divergence is a one-to-many relationship;
Convergence is a many-to-one relationship;
Amplification requires the addition of elements;
Reduction requires the elimination of elements;
Diffusion requires the addition of elements without giving extra-information;
Condensation calls for a reduction/contraction of the source text;
Reordering refers to comparative syntax.
Natural equivalence: the relationship between two languages is one of equivalence: the things of equal value are
presumed to exist prior to the act of translation. It is established on any linguistic level (ranks: morphology,
syntax, etc). Establishes many procedures by which equivalence can be maintained.
Approaches: Vinay and Daberlnet: Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais (1958); Catford: a linguistico
theory of translation (1965).
Vinay and Daberlnet are still used in compared linguistics, used for specific strategies or small texts. They
established a model to maintain equivalence (prescriptive):

Direct translation:

1. Borrowing/loan
2. Calque
3. Literal translation (prescription for a good translation)

Oblique translation

1. Transposition (one part of speech for another without changing the meaning)
Ex. Though their life was modes: nonostante vivessero modestamente
2. Modulation: changes the semantics of the SL to create a correct equivalent in the TL .
ex. I came to a moment of my life: sono arrivato a un punto della mia vita
That was the moment when I understood: quello è stato il momento in cui ho capito
3 .Equivalence: same situation with different stylistic or structural meaning
ex. Idioms > a null in a china shop: elefante in una cristalleria
4. Adaptation: changing the cultural reference when a situation in the source culture does not exist in the target
culture
ex. Lime/limone
When I make changes for oblique translations, these changes need to be necessary.

Servitude and option

Servitude: obligatory transpositions
Option: non-obligatory changes due to the translator’s own style
Unit of translation: lexicological unit + unit of thought (short phrases)

Catford’s Linguistic theory of translation:

Follows Hallidayan linguistic model: language as communication on a range of different ranks (sentence, clause,
morpheme, group, word)
Makes a distinction between formal correspondence and textual equivalence. A formal correspondent is any TL
category (unit, class, element of structure) which occupies the same place in the economy of the TL as the given
SL category occupies in the SL. A textual equivalent is any TL text or portion of text which in a particular
occasion is observed to be opòequivalent to a given SL text or portion of text.
Formal correspondance has to do with language, textual equivalence has to do with a specific ST-TT pair. When
the two aspects diverge, we produce a translation shift: translation shifts are departure from formal
correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL.
Level shifts: something which is expressed by grammar in the ST is expressed by lexis in the TT.
ex. Aspect: facevo/I used to do
Category shifts: difference in grammar or structure
ex. I need some advice: ho bisogno di consigli

Directional equivalence: the relationship between two languages in asymmetric, and it is the translator who aims
at creating the equivalence (they do not normally exist prior ti the act of translation). Tends to establish different
kinds of equivalence. The strategies are usually expressed in terms of two opposed poles. Directional
equivalence describes the way a translation represents its source text.
Theories not really considered before (used in semantics and linguistics, useful when we study languages and
their structure and when we compare languages, but translation and translation studies have transcended these
ideas).
Equivalence: it already exists, it is based on the existence of a universality. Languages are not equivalent, this
equivalence doesn’t exist before, it is the translator who creates equivalence between the two languages.
Directional approach to equivalence: Nida ‘Towards a science of translating’ (1964)

- Translating and linguistics (Chomsky generative-transformational grammar)

- Bible translation

Every language is a world view, however we don’t think that we are not able in our possibility of thought if we
don’t have some words. New theories on the concept of equivalence start to arise.

Nida’s types of equivalence:

1. Formal equivalence: the message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different
elements in the source language (ST oriented).
2. Dynamic equivalence: based on the principle of equivalent effect, in which the relationship between receptor
and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the
message > aims at naturalness of expression (receptor oriented). Nothing to do with sense and meaning.

A successful translation depends on achieving equivalent response.

Koller, ‘Research into the science of translation’ (based on Catford)

• Correspondence: field of contrastive linguistics (differences and similarities in languages; ec. False friends,
lexical, morphological and syntactic interference) langue68
• Equivalence: equivalent items in specific ST-TT terms pairs and context parole (so not only linguistic, but
also extratextual factors such as communicative situations or text types, social usage, stylistic effect,
evaluation, emotion etc. To obtain equivalence one must operate changes (shifts in Catford)
Equivalence is something you aim at, and to obtain it you have to move away or deviate from correspondence.
Challenge to linguistic equivalence theory:

• Ernst-August Gutt and relevance theory: equivalence is not found in language or in translation as such, but
regards what people believe about translations (in other words, equivalence is a given fact, it is assumed).
• Kinds of translation: Overt (marked and received as translations) and covert (adaptation for a new audience in
which equivalence is not necessary relevant)
• Within the category of overt translations (translation proper): indirect translations and direct translations.

Indirect translations: can be done without referring to the context

Direct translations: refer to the context.

“Direct translation creates a presumption of complete interpretative resemblance”. Language is a weak

representation of meaning: it is only a set of comunicative clues that receivers have to interpret > based on H.
Paul Grice (1975): we do not communicate by language alone, but by the relation between language and context.
ex. The back door is open > interpretation: is it a suggestion? Is it an instruction? Is it simply an observation?
(Implicature)
The notion of implicature gives two kinds of equivalence, and two kinds of translation.
• The back door is open
• We should close the back door

Direct translation is preferred in terms of the start context only (vs dynamic equivalence): it is the audience’s
responsibility to make up for such differences.
Equivalence does not deal with language only or with counting of words but operates more on the level of belief,
or interpretative processes.
Debate on meaning stronger after the ‘70s. When the science of translation starts to seem old, the question of
equivalence starts to crumble, and it shuffles to the idea of function of the text.

Functionalist theories of translation - Germany, 1970-80

They move away from static linguistic typologies. Equivalence at text level, not at word level. The key words is
not equivalence but purpose, functionalist and communicative approach to the analysis of translation. Each text
has as purpose and aim in communication, and they follow this idea. So what should be taken in account, the
function of the focus or the target of the text?
Katharina Reiss, ‘translation criticism’ (1971).
Different text types require different kinds of translation.
• Informative (plain communication of facts, information, knowledge): brochures, guides, informations etc.
• Expressive (creative compositions, aesthetically relevant)
• Operative (to appeal or persuade the reader to operate in a certain way)
• Audiomedial texts (films, visual and spoken advertisement)
Instruction criteria to translate:
Intralinguistic criteria: semantic, lexical, grammar, style
Extralinguistic criteria: situation, subject field, time, place, receiver, sender, humor, irony, emotion and so on.
Translation moves beyond consideration a lower linguistic levels, towards a consideration of the communicative
purpose of translation: Skopos theory (Katharina Reiss and Hans Vermeer ‘Foundation for a general theory of
translation’ 1984, Justa Holz-Manttari ‘translatorial action’ 1984)
Skopos theory: a translator needs to work in order to achieve the skopos, the communicative purpose of the
translation rather than just follow the start text.
New elements: commissioners of the translation, users of the translation
“An action is determined by its goal. The dominant factor of each translation is its purpose. Each text is
produced for a given purpose and should serve this purpose. The skopos rule reads as follows:
translate/interpret/speak/write in a way that enables you text/translation to function in the situation in which it is
used and with the people who want to use it and precisely in the way they want it to function”.
Translator’s choices need not be dominated by the start text, but by the target text. First non prescriptive theory.
Translations are not simply texts, but also projects.
Holz-Manttari: action theory (pragmatics), quite cold process. The translator is a consultant, a mediator, an
expert in the field.
• Functionalism of text but of society as well
• Every human action has an aim: translating is a human action
• When a message has to cross into another culture, the people sending that message will require help from an
expert in cross cultural communication: translator
• The translator is the one who can give advice on the other culture, and writes a new text on the basis of
information provided by the client.
• Therefore, the translator writes a new text and can still be called a translator.

Question: do these theories challenge the concept of equivalence? Why or why not?
Context matters more than equivalence.

Vermeer: the function of the start text might be different from the one of the target text. The focus is the effect
the text, is supposed to have on the target reader.
Holz-Mattari: new pragmatic factors are given new attention
• The role of clients
• The instructions that the translator receive prior to the translating
• The purpose of the text from the point of view of the receiver
• Professionalism of translators in society

Question: who should train translators?

Text-based equivalence: faculties of language and linguistics
Purpose based analysis: applied sociology, marketing, ethics of communication and so on.

Skopos rule ‘dethrones’ the start text, but who rules now?
For Holz-Mattari, the properly trained translator is the expert in solving problem concerning translation, so he is
the one who decides of translational matters. Authors and clients decide about field-specific terminology or
desired effect on the reader: mutual respect.
For Vermeer, ‘the highest responsibility of the translator is to transmit the intended information in the optimal
manner’. What is optimal? ‘Optimal is in the eyes of the translator’.
To sum up:
• for these theorists, translators must ultimately act in their own name in each specific situation;
• The old categories of equivalence had repressed the translator’s individuality, whereas skopos theory
emphasizes that individuality;
• The source text is not the only important point of reference;
• Other theorists, however put their emphasis on the client’s instructions and on the initiator’s decision.
Christiane Nord ‘Text analysis in translatio’ 1988: presents a detailed functional model which incorporates
elements of text analysis (74 questions). Distinguishes between:
Documentary translation (overt): document of a source culture communication between the author and the ST
recipient
Instrumental translation (covert): independent message transmitting instrument in a new communicative action
in a target culture.
Approach to translation by Nord:
1. Translation commission (See Holz-Manttari)
2. The intended function of the text, with particular attention to the function of the ST (vs Skopos)
3. ST analysis (non verbal elements, register of the lexis, presuppositions) so that problematic features can be
identified
4. The ethical component is not faithfulness but loyalty between the two texts.

Criticism to functionalist theories:

I. Peter Newmark (’88): ‘we translate words, not functions’, words are ‘all that is there, on the page’: words
are all that we can translate, contexts are interpretative constructions, largely built on the basis of words.
II. The concept of purpose is idealistic: if textual meaning is considered to be unstable and always open to
interpretation, the same may be said of any assumed purposes or functions
III. The theory contradicts ethics of truth and accuracy: ‘skopos theory is the notion that the end justifies the
means’. Skopos only takes into account translations as commercial outputs, but translations re a ‘noble, truth
seeking activity and needs to be accurate’.

Translation has become a dialectic process (source text/culture - target culture/audience). Translators do not
depend on fixed rules, but look for guidelines in order to produce a translation. Beyond function, what other
elements should the translator use as a possible guideline?

• The dominant: Jakobson (1987) it may be defined as the focusing component of a work of art: it rules,
determines and transforms the remaining components. It is the dominant which guarantees the integrity of the
structure. You can decide which aspect is most important in a text (poetry: metrical system? Rhyme?
Rhetoric?) And you translate according to that. If we follow the dominant, we produce adequacy in
translation.
• The semiotic of fidelity and the Model Reader: Eco (1995) “la semiotica della fedeltà consiste nel ritrovare
non l’intenzione dell’autore (intentio autoris) ma l’intenzione del testo (intento operis), quello che il testo dice
e suggerisce in rapporto alla lingua in cui è espresso e al contesto culturale in cui è nato.” L’opera esprime un
significato, un senso, aldilà dell’intento dell’autore e del lettore.
Intentio operis: ciò che un’opera esprime ‘di per sé’ al di la delle intenzioni di chi la
produce o legge. “L’autore/traduttore deve dunque prevedere un modello del lettore
possibile che suppone sia in grado di affrontare interpretativamente le espressioni nello
stesso modo in cui l’autore le affronta generativamente” > proiezione del prototesto sul
lettore: “mettersi nei panni del letto modello”.
Il lettore modello è fondamentale perché egli compartecipa alla funzione comunicativa del
testo. Non importa se target-oriented o source-oriented; il testo tradotto deve restituire il
senso o gran parte del senso dell’originale.

Uncertainty

We can never be sure of the meanings we translate but we translate nevertheless. Uncertainty doesn’t stop us.
Theories based on uncertainty question the fact that translations can’t ever be equivalent to the source text.
Dissatisfaction with equivalence:
• Instability of the source: the source text and its meaning change in time, so the interpretations etc. change
throughout time; it’s not a fixed object.
• Epistemological scepticism: those who are skeptical say there’s a source of relativism that we can’t ignore, we
can’t have certainty about knowledge.

Epistemological scepticism: theories who express doubt on how we get to know something (the approach is
usually oppositional, there are determinist and indeterminist POVs. Some theories question meanings in
translations, some question meanings altogether (deconstruction).
Quine’s principle of Indeterminacy in translation:
• there are degrees of certainty with regard to the translations
• Indeterminacy will never go away
• Example: rabbit
Indeterminacy exists in all forms of communication. Theories which assume ‘codes’ or ‘transmission’ or
‘meaning. The determinist POV is that what x means is what y understands; the indeterminist POV is that we are
never sure that the two sides share the same meanings.
Determinist views of language present / indeterminist views of translations
Cratylus: Hermogenes says that words are just arbitrary labels for things (encodings). Cartylus argues that each
thing has its proper word (the shape of the word fits the thing).
Determinist theories: Cratylist
1. “World view theories”: the nature of the language system determines perception of the thing (strong link
between expression and concept).
2. Modernist aesthetics: form and content are inseparable. Eliot: “that which is to be communicated is the poem
itself”: no meaning exists prior to the poem.
3. Benedetto croce and the concept of similarity/familiarity: family likeness is the best that translations should
hope to achieve. Source text/pure language/superior entity which are originals therefore cannot be
‘reproduced’. More negative than positive translations as equivalence is impossible (Benjamin).

Deconstruction: Derrida; deconstruction sets out to undo illusions of stable meaning.

• Not a theory, but a practice: language is in fact not transparent.
• Critic to Jakobson and the concept of translation ‘proper’: there is no true meaning embedded in the text.
• Critique to any form of determinism.
• Translation is a form of transformation and not of meaning transfer.
• Looks for the ‘remainder’: the potential significations that are omitted din the process of translation. ex. Drug
• Translation investigates the plurality of the source text and its semantic richness: there is more than one
language in every language.
• Where is the source text? It is a phantom, an image that organizes the range of translational variants without
fixing them in any deterministic way. The source text returns, as the host of King Hamlet, but only as a spirit
that can hope to guide without acting directly. Metaphore: translation is a process, more than a product, it is
‘the after-life of a voice’ and how it can continue its life transformed.

Translation always involves transformation, so how should we translate?

Not prescriptions, but effects on translators: S.C. Chau (1984).
• They become more humble, aware of the limitations.
• They become more honest, admitting that neither their reading nor their rendering are canonical.
• They become more efficient interpreters, because they are proactive in their search within themselves.
• They become more confident, because their creativity is affirmed.
• They become more responsible, because their interpretation shapes the meaning of a text.

Critics to deconstruction:
• these theories are not useful to translators (theories for theorists): translators are not paid for showing
indeterminacy to the world.
• The theorists are not translators and do not care about translations (more philosophers or literary theorists):
they use translations to do philosophy.
• The theories lead to a lack of rigor: ‘anything goes’
• These theories have no effect on the actual practice of translations.
• These theories are merely oppositional.
• They do not tell us how to live with uncertainty.

Translation studies
Common name of the subject, that applies the different theories.
“The name and nature of translation studies” by James S. Holmes (72), paper given at the translation section of
the Third International congress of applied Linguistics in Copenhagen. “Founding statement for the field”. The
major question up to that moment was about the existence, the forms and natures of equivalence. No more
preoccupation about equivalence because Holmes thinks that the study of translation cannot be simply focused
on wether there is equivalence or not in the text;
Holmes realized as did few others that the 1950s had heralded a revolution in translation studies. He highlighted
the existence of 3 main impediments to the further development of the discipline:
• Scholars and researchers scattered in different fields and therefore lack of common channels of
communication;
• Lack of any general consensus as to the scope and structure of the discipline.
He concludes that:
• the most appropriate name for the discipline in English is translation studies (TS), for this term would avoid a
lot of confusion and misunderstanding
• There should be communication channels able to reach all scholars in the field, from whatever background
• TS can be divided into 2 main research areas: pure and applied translation studies.
Pure TS has two main goals (descriptive and theoretical)
1. To describe the phenomena of translating and translation(s) as they manifest themselves in the world of
experience (descriptive translation studies DTS)
2. To establish general principles by means of which these phenomena can be explained and predicted
(translation theory, TTH).
Descriptive TS: three areas of research:
1. Product /synchronic, diachronic)
2. Function (translation sociology or socio-translation studies)
3. Process (psychology of translation or psycho-translation studies

Descriptions:
• Prime focus on shift rather than equivalence (which is in fact assumed), do not undertake extensive analysis of
source text.
• Emphasize the target-culture context (like Skopos theory) but see functions in terms of the positions occupied
by the translations within the target systems, rather with respect to clients/job description.
• Tend to concern what translations are usually like in a particular context.
• Thus, they are able to talk about the norms that guide how translations are produced and received.
• The paradigm therefore is relativistic (one good translation in an historical period might be not good in
another)
• This approval reveals the diversity of translation practices in different historical periods, cultures, or types of
communication.

System theories: one of the first theories in Translation Studies. This idea of systems was put forward by Even-
Zohar and Toury, who created the theory of the polysystem (Even- Zohar was closer to descriptive translation
studies), Toury was closer to methodical translation studies. Still referred to nowadays. Up until now, we have
seen scholars debating of the relevance of a translation, of its closeness to the source text.

• Even-Zohar polysystem theory (1970s-1980s)

• Toury’s methodology for descriptive translation studies (norms and laws)

Polysistem theory

Even-Zohar  (Israel) worked on literary historiography and linguistics .

• A literary work does not exist in isolation (Lotman), but within a literary system; in a system as in Italy, we
have economy, literature, culture, history. All these systems that are interconnected and that create the
polysystem are always competing to become primary and to become more important than the others, being
always in competition.
• Literature is part of the social, cultural, literary and historical framework in a system, in which there is an
ongoing dynamic of struggle and competition for the literary canon.

Translated literature is an element of the polysystem of literature that operates as a system in itself
1) In the way the TL culture selects works for translation
2) In the way translation norms. Behaviour and policies are influenced by other co-systems

The relations between all these systems is called then a polysistem. NB: the interaction and positioning of these
systems occurs in a dynamic hierarchy, changing according to the historical moment.
Where is the translated literature system positioned? It’s not fixed, but either primary or secondary.

I. If it is primary, it participates 1)actively in shaping the center on the polysystem. Translations are a leading
factor in the formation of new models for the target culture, introducing new poetics and so on.
• when a young literature is being established
• When a literature is peripheral or weak and imports literary types which it is lacking (smaller nation or
language is dominated by a larger one)
• When there is a critical turning point in literary history which challenge traditional models or there is a
vacuum in the literature of the country.

II. Secondary position: peripheral system within the polysistem; has no major influence over the central system
and even becomes a conservative element, preserving conservative forms or literary norms of the target system.
Even-Zohar points out that the secondary positionis the «normal» one for translated literatures. A culture
translates according to need.

The position occupied by translated literature in the polysystem conditions the translation strategies
           
• Primary: translators tend to break conventions:
TT reproduces a close match of the ST
Influence of the foreign language may lead to
The production of new models in the TL

• Secondary: translators use existing target culture models for the tt

Advantages of the polysystem theory

• Literature itself is studies alongside the social, historical and cultural forces
• Even-Zohar moves away from the isolated study of translations, including cultural and literary systems
connected
• The adequacy of a translation varies according to the social, historical and cultural situation of the text
• LIMITS: applied only to literary translation.

Toury and descriptive translation studies

• Worked with Even-Zohar in Tel Aviv

• He focuses on developing a general theory of translation
• Interested in methodology and research techniques made as explicit as possible
1) Translations are first and foremost «facts of target cultures: on occasion facts of a peculiar status, sometimes
even constituting identifiable (sub-systems of their own»

2) He proposes a 3-phase methodology for systematic DTS

Situate the text within the target culture system

- Undertake a textual analysis of the ST and TT to identify relationships between corresponding segments in the
two texts (coupled pairs): identify translation shifts, both obligatory and non-obligatory

3) attempt generalizations about the pattern identified in the two texts, which helps to reconstruct the process of
translation for this ST-TT pair

4) Repeat these phases for other pairs of similar texts

This leads to the identification of the NORMS pertaining to each kind of translation: the ultimate aim is to state
laws of behavior for translation in general

• Distinguish trends of translation behavior, making generalizations about the decision-making processes of the
translator
• NORMS are :   «the translation of general values or ideas shared by a community as to what is right or wrong,
adequate or inadequate – into performance instructions appropriate for and applicable to particular situations»
Toury 2012, 63
• Norms are sociocultural constraints specific to a culture, society and time.

Rules〈---------〉 norms 〈---------〉idiosyncrasies

Rules are supported by legislation: strongest constraints

Norms are generally agreed forms of behavior, weaker than rules
Conventions are more informal still

Translation is an activity governed by norms, and these norms determine the type and extent of equivalence
manifested in actual translations: regularity of behavior
Options that translators in a given socio-historical context select on a regular basis

Norms operating in the translation processes

1) Initial norm
2) Preliminary norm
3) Operational norm

1. Initial norm: a general choice made by the translator with regard to the ST or the TT
• Individual translator’s choice to subject oneself either to the original text or target culture’s linguistic and
literary norms.
• It determines whether the translation is source-norm oriented or target-norm oriented.
• If source oriented: adequate TO translation (adeguata a)
• If target oriented: acceptable translation

Two poles: adequacy and acceptability

No translation is ever entirely adequate to the original version because the cultural norms cause shifts from the
source text structures.
No translation is ever entirely acceptable to the target culture because some new information and forms will be
introduced to the system.

2. Preliminary norm

Involving factors such as which govern the choice of the work and the overall translation strategy. 
It includes the choice of translation policies and the directness of the translations (whether translation occurs
through an intermediate language)

3. Operational norm

Presentation and linguistic matter of the TT (relocation of passages, textual segmentation, addition of passages,
lexical items, phrases and so on).
The examination of the ST and TT should reveal shifts in the relations between the two that have taken place in
translation, which is in fact at the root of his idea of equivalence
Equivalence is assumed, not achieved: the analysis of shifts is a way to understand how translators usually
operate.

CONSEQUENCE:

• The cumulative identification of norms in descriptive studies will enable the formulation of probabilistic laws
of translation and thence of universals of translation.
• These norms are produced by some sort of LAW underneath them: what happens in the process of translating
is related to a certain context of production.

Toury’s proporition of laws of translations

1) The law of growing standardization: translations are flatter, simpler, less-structures, less ambiguous – if
compared to non-translations. This happens when the status of the translation is more peripheral
2) The law of interference: translators bring across structures that are in the source text, even when these are not
normal in the TL.

Tolerance of interference depends on socio-cultural factors and the prestige of the different literary system: we
tolerate more interference when translating from a prestigious language or culture, especially if the target
language or culture is considered to be «more» minor.

The key element that determines these norms is the social and cultural condition.
Ex. Censorship: TT would standardize or substitute culture-specific elements and omit chunks that conflict with
the accepted target culture ideology

Criticism to Toury’s work

1) Where is the ST’s culture in terms of

• Status of the source text
• Promotion of translation in the soruce culture
• Effect of the translation exerted back on the system of the source culture

The «universals» of translations are common tendencies in translated texts, but are potentially infinite, since
every act of translation is different. No features of translation are ever universal unless they are so general as to
be of little use.
Ex. «translation involves shifts»

Chesterman (2004)

Picks up the «universals of translation» idea: S -universals and T- Universals

S-Universals: relate to universal differences, patterns of shifts, between translations and their source texts
• TTs tend to be longer than STs
• Dialect tends to be normalized
• Explicitation is common
• Repetition is perhaps reduced
• Retranslation may lead to a TT that is closer to the ST

T-Universals: features that characterize TRANSLATED LANGUAGE as compared to natural occurring

language, irrespective of the source texts
• Lexical simplification and conventionalization
• A contrary move towards non-typical patterns (unusual collocations)
• Under-representation of lexical items that are specific to the TL (reduced use of culture specific items ---
think about yesterday’s «cenoni»)

The Concept of norms and Universals has a great bearing on the development of recent translation studies

Manipulation school

BELGIUM, ISRAEL; THE NETHERLANDS (1975- 1980)

José Lambert, Theo Hermans

Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary translation, edited by Theo Hermans (1985)
Central concept: Translation is manipulation of the ST; literature is not studied in isolation but within its social,
historical and cultural context.

Scholars compare and study traslations, not the process of translating.

View on translated literature:

«interested in the norms and constraints that govern the production and reception of translations» often through
comparison of different translations and translators.
 “From the point of view of the target literature, all translation implies a degree of manipulation of the source
text for a certain purpose”

They compare different Ts of the same text (diachronically), study the reception of Ts in a specific culture, etc.
Thus, their analyses belong more to the field of Comparative Literature. However, the significant fact is that they
examine translated texts / literature in translation. The focus is on description of the TT as a manipulated text.

Translation studies: the cultural turn

“Translation is seen as a text type in its own right, as an integral part of the target culture and not merely as the
reproduction of another text.”  (Snell-Hornby: 24)

Move from translation as text to translation as culture.

This was called the «cultural turn», developed especially by the scholars Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere.
This approach includes studies of changing standards in translation over time, the power exercised in and on the
publishing industry in pursuit of specific ideologies, feminist writing and translation, translation as
appropriation, translation and colonization, translation as rewriting.

• literature is regarded as one of the systems of culture, and a culture/society is the environment of a literary
system.
• The literary system and the other systems influence each other.
• They interact in ways which are determined by the logic of the culture to which they belong. In this system,
there is a constant struggle for conquering a place in the literary canon. (André Lefevere, 1992: pp. 11-14)

Who controls  the “logic of the culture”?

• In the case of literary systems, control comes from inside and outside the system.
• Control from the inside comes from the professionals within the literary system: critics, publishers, reviewers,
teachers, translators.
• Control from the outside comes from ‘patronage’, i.e., the powers (institutions, persons, etc.) that control the
reading, writing and rewriting of literature. (Lefevere, 1992:15)

Translation as rewriting (Andre Lefevere, Susan bassnett)

1. Translators cannot be separated from their cultural background: translators are thus influenced by culture,
politics and ideology.
2. Translation has always served a special purpose or many purposes and has been shaped by a certain force or
power.
3. The choice of the works to be translated, the guidelines and the goals of the translation activity are set by
certain forces.
4. Therefore translation takes the form of rewriting, since it is performed under certain constraints and for
certain purposes.
5. Rewriting as an act of manipulation of the ST which is ‘purposefully designed to exclude certain readers,
authors and ultimately translators’.

In 1981, Lefevere introduced the concept of refracted text.

«texts that have been processed for a certain audeince (children for example), or adapted to a certain poetics or a
certain ideology»: the adaptation of a work of literature to a different audience, with the intention of influencing
the way in which that audience reads the work»

Translation is not a pure, simple and transparent linguistic matter, but involves factors such as power, ideology,
poetics and patronage.

All rewritings, whatever their intention, reflect a certain ideology and a poetics and as such manipulate literature
to function in a given society in a given way. Rewriting is manipulation, undertaken in the service of power, and
in its positive aspect can help the evolution of a literature and a society. Rewriting can introduce new concepts,
new genres, new devices, and the history of translation is the history also of literary innovation, of the shaping
power of one culture upon another.
Rewritings are also literary criticism, reviewing, summary, adaptation, anthologizing, tv film and so on. All
rewritings, whatever their intention, reflect a certain ideology and a poetics and as such manipulate literature to
function in a given society in a given way. Rewriting is manipulation, undertaken in the service of power, and in
its positive aspect can help the evolution of a literature and a society. Rewriting can introduce new concepts, new
genres, new devices, and the history of translation is the history also of literary innovation, of the shaping power
of one culture upon another. Rewritings are also literary criticism, reviewing, summary, adaptation,
anthologizing, tv film and so on.
Which factors give rise to rewritings?

Translation, history, culture: a sourcebook  (Bassnett, Lefevere)

Translators operate under constraints

1) Ideology: the opinions and attitudes deemed acceptable in a certain society at a certain time, and through
which readers and translators approach texts .Dominant concept of what society should be or is allowed to
be: enforced by
2) «patrons», the people or institution which commission or publish translation

A. Professionals within the literary system

B. Patronage outside the literary system: persons/institutions that can promote or hinder the reading, writing
and rewriting of literature:

• Influential individuals in a given historical era (Elizabeth I, Hitler…) 

• Groups: publishers, the media, parties
• Institutions regulating the distribution of literature + ideas (academia, journals, educational establishment)

Elements to this patronage: ideology (choice of subject + form of presentation); economic component (payment
of writers / rewriters); status component (beneficiary expected to conform to the patron's expectations)

3) The dominant poetics: literary devices (genres, symbols, leitmotifs prototypical situations / characters) + the
idea of the role of literature in the social system. This influences the «selection of themes that must be relevant to
the social system as a whole»

Institutions enforce or at least try to enforce the dominant poetics of a period by using it as the yardstick against
which current production is measured.» Some authors will become «classics» when the dominant poetics allows
it.
Ex. Elena Ferrante

Together, ideology and poetics dictate the translation strategy and the solution to specific linguistic problems:
Ex. Lysistrata

Translation and gender

Translation studies becomes a «hybrid» discipline, in which culture might have many different meanings
Sherry Simon, Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission (1996)
Culture is used too broadly in TS, whereas it should be treated as a problematic reality. It is not simply «the
environment of a literary system» but needs to be studied from a specific angle.
Gender-studies angle: sexism in TS, with the images of dominance, fidelity, faithfulness and betrayal.
“Whether affirmed or denounced, the femininity of translation is a persistent historical trope. ‘Woman’ and
‘translator’ have been relegated to the same position of discursive inferiority. The hierarchical authority of the
original over the reproduction is linked with imagery of masculine and feminine; the original is considered the
strong generative male, the translation the weaker and derivative female” (Sherry Simon, Gender in Translation)

• Les belles infidèles (17° century image, artistically beautiful but unfaithful)
• George Steiner male-oriented image if translation in After Babel
• Status of translation: derivative and inferior = status of women, repressed in society and literature
• Feminist theory:

«identifies and criticizes the tangle of concepts which relegates both women and translation to the bottom of the
social and literary ladder»
For feminist translation «fidelity is to be directed toward neither the author nor the treader, but toward the
writing project – a project in which both writer and translator participate» Simon, 1996

Translation project: in Canada, 1980s

Feminist translator emphasize their identity and ideological position in the cultural dialogue between Quebec
and Anglophone Canada
Feminine translators use every possible translation strategy to make «the feminine visible in the language»
Example: markers of gender
one becomes one when feminine, to distinguish it from the masculine
Human Rights : Human Rights to show the implicit sexism
Author becomes Auther if feminine (neologism)
Nouns become personified (down: she)

Contribution of women to translation history

Constance Garnett, first half of the 20° century

Jill Levin, translator of Guillermo Cabrera Infante’s Tres tristes tigres
Feminist reading of literature influenced translations
Ex. Nadia Fusini
Various new gender-sensitive translations into a number of languages and reactions (Liturgiam Authenticam,
2001)

Postcolonial translation theory

• Cultural studies : reframe of «conditions of textual authority»
• Cultural studies brings to translation an understanding of the complexities of gender and culture. It allows to
situate linguistic transfer within the multiple «post» realities fo today: post-structuralism, postcolonialism,
postmodernism (Simon 1996)

Postcolonialism: covers studies of the history of the former colonies, of powerful European Empires, resistance
to power, and the effect of the imbalance of power relations between colonized and colonizer.

G. Spivak, The politics of translation (1993)

• examines the consequences of the translation of «third World » literature into English and the distortion it
entails.
• Takes issue at translation into English, which expresses the «law of the strongest», suppressing individuals
and cultures that are politically less powerful
• Critique of western feminism: feminists from egemonic countries should show solidarity with women in
postcolonial context by learning the language these women speak and write
• The politics of translation gives prominence to English and other hegemonic languages of the ex-colonizers
• Translations often overassimilates the differences to make them accessible to the western readers

Translation has played an active role in the colonization process and in disseminating an ideologically motivated
image of colonized peoples.
• «the shameful history of translation» Bassnett and Trivedi

POWER RELATIONS

T. Niranjana, Siting Translation: History, Post-structuralism, and the Colonial Context

• Translation into English has been used to construct an image of the «east» that has come to stand for the
truth
• Ex. Missionaries who ran schools for the colonized, being also translators or linguists; ethnographers
«Translation as a practice shapes and takes shape within the asymmetrical relations of power that operate under
colonialism»

Critique to western TS:

• Ts has not considered the question of power imbalance between different languages
• Concepts underlying western translation theory are flawed (text, author, meaning)
• The act of translation should be questioned, for the image it builds of colonial domination, including it into
the discourse of western philosophy.
• DECONSTRUCTION: «dismantling the hegemonic West from within»
Call for an «interventionist» approach from the translator, based on resistance to any analogy with western
canons or analogies

Bassnett and Trivedi, Post-colonial Translation: Theory and practice (1999)

• English is «the master-language» , and translation is seen as the battleground of the post colonial context, in
which various local languages try to emerge
• Postcolonials and their «position» and identity related to the concept of cultural translation by Homi Bhabha

CULTURAL TRANSLATION: «the translator is no longer a mediator between two different poles, but his/her
activities are inscribed in cultural overlappings which imply difference». Deals with the relationship with the
Other
The «third place»: the overlaps between the colonized and the colonizer
TRANSLATION has become a metaphor as CULTURAL TRANSFORMATION and COMMUNICATION
Discussion of the novel The satanic verses by Salman Rushdie, which was written in English (there are no
source texts or taget texts as different identities), but the whole DISCOURSE of the book is «translation»
because it concerns the position of migrants, which is hybrid.
He is uninterested in the translations of The Satanic Verses, but regards the novel as a cultural translation, in
which the scared is turned into prophane

The ideologies of the theorists

Theorists themselves have their own ideologies and their own agendas: committed approaches to translation
studies
Ex. Feminist translators flaunt their manipulation of texts, postcolonialist theorists condemn any sort of
manipulation

Strong element of competition and conflict:

The question of power in postcolonial translation studies and Lefevere’s work on the ideology of rewriting has
led to the examination of power and ideology in general, where translation is involved

For example:
• Manipulations in the TT that may be indicative of the translator’s conscious ideology
• Ideological elements of the translation environment, such as pressure from commissioners, editors or
institutional circles (news translations)
• «disparity» seems to be the key element even in languages: «epistemicide» caused by the dominance of
English scientific and academic style, which eliminates more traditional, discursive writing

From translations to translators

• Visibility, ethics and sociology
• VISIBILITY: where is the translator? How can he be visible?

Lawrence Venuti and The translator’s invisibility (1995)

1. considers Venuti’s own experience as a translator of Italian poetry and fiction
2. Invisibility is the term he uses to describe the translator’s situation and activity in conemporary British and
American Cultures, produced by
• a tendency to translate «fluently» into English, producing an idiomatic and readable TT creating an illusion
of transparency
• By the way translations are read in the TC
• Translations are dominated by the idea that they need to appear or look like «an original» and not as a
translation
• This is caused by the prevailing «conception of authorship» : derivative and secondary quality and
importance of translations
• The «act» of translation needs to be concealed.

TYPES of TRANSLATION in practice: Domestication and Foreignization

These practices concern both the CHOICE OF TEXT to translate and the TRANSLATION METHOD
Domestication is dominating in British and American culture. Domestication is «an ethnocentric reduction of the
foreign text to receiving cultural values», therefore represents dominating and imperialistic cultures

Domestication minimizes the foreigness of the TT, adhering to domestic literary canons by selecting the texts
that are likely to lend themselves to such a translation strategy
Foreignization: means choosing a foreign text and developing a translations among lines which are excluded by
dominant cultural values in the TL. «highly desirable and strategic cultural intervention», in which you «send the
reader abroad»: non fluent, estranging or heterogeneous translation style in which the translator is visible

• Foreignization is linked to «minoritizing» translation

• Choices of minor texts or authors
• Close adherence to the ST structure and syntax
• Calques

Domestication and foreignization are ethical attitudes towards the foreign text and culture. Fluency and
resistancy are the strategies which are the result of these ethical approaches.
Antoine Berman, The experience of the Foreign (1992) and Translation and the trials of the foreign
Translation is a «trial»: una prova, in two senses
1. For the target culture experiencing the strangeness of the foreign text and word
2. For the foreign text in being uprooted from it original language context

Berman deplores «naturalization»: «the proper act of translation si receiving the Foreign as Foreign»
He identifies a system of «textual deformation» in TT’s that prevents the foreign from coming through, which
are ethnocentric forces.
This deformation is caused by the desire to translate as well as the form of the TT
Only by psychoanalytic analysis of the translator’s work and making the translator aware of the forces at work
can such tendencies be neutralized

There are 12 deforming tendencies:

1. rationalization: modification of syntactic structures, punctuation, sentence structure, order, simplification of
complex structures
2. Clarification: explicitation and making clear what is obscure in the ST
3. Expansion: ushapes rhythm, overtranslation or flattening
4. Ennoblement: tendency to improve on the original by being more elegant
5. Qualitative impoverishment: replacement of words and expressions with TT equivalents which are less rich
or significant
6. Quantitative impoverishment: loss of lexical variation (ex. Face for semblante, rostro and cara)
7. Destruction of rhythms
8. Destruction of underlying networks of signification: words which are linked significantly throughout the text
9. Destruction of linguistic patterns: translators use a variety of tecniques asystematically, whereas the ST may
be systematic in its sentence constructions
10. Destruction of vernaculars or exoticization: local speech or language is erased, or placed in italics, or
ridiculed
11. Destruction of expressions and idioms: the replacement of a proverb or idiom by its TL quivalent is
ethnocentrism
12. Effacement of the superimposition of languages: erasing traces of different forms of language that co-exist in
the ST

Counterbalancing these elements is Berman’s proposal for a correct translation, which he calls literal translation.
Literal here means «attached to the letter of works». This includes both the signifying process of works and on
the other hand transforming the translating language.

The translator as agent and the translator’s turn

• «call to action»: translators must become active agents in the translation process, both in the choice of texts
and in the translation strategies
• Practising translators should be conscious of their position (usually view their work in vague terms)
• Scholars call for a «translator’s turn», which sees translators as intervenient beings and authors

Susan Bassnett, The translator as writer

• Translations from the point of view of translators

• Translations are a distinctive, creative literary practice
• Translators have a responsibility towards the text, because they recreate and rewrite
its meaning in the TC

New Media and Audiovisual translation

Translation practice consisting of presenting a written text (usu. on the lower part of
the screen) which recounts:
- the original dialogues of the speakers;
- the dicursive elements that appear in the image (letters, graffiti, placards, etc.)
- the information contained in the soundtrack (songs, voices off).

Gambier (2003)
• Different types of audiovisual activity:
13. Interlingual subtitling – for cinema and video (open or closed)
14. Bilingual subtitling – subtitles are provided simultaneously in two languages
15. Intralingual subtitling
16. Dubbing (lip-sync)
17. Voice-over (documentary or interviews)
18. Surtitling (subtitles projected above the stage at the theater)
19. Audio description (for the visually impaired)

Subtitling
 • Differences between interlingual subtitling and written translation: space and time
constraints that lead to a necessary reduction in the number of words on the
screen
• Constraints of the image on screen, normally inviolable
• Soundtrack in the SL
The subtitler must respect aspects of the cinematography such as camera cuts and the
rhythm of the dialogue
The coexistence of ST soundtrack and TT subtitles respect space and time constraints, they
must also stand up to the scrutiny of an audience that may have some knowledge of the
original language: «vulnerable translation»

Priorities in subtitling

• Synthesis (condensation/concision; elemination/suppression)

• Readability (accuracy, fluency, credibility)
• Orality (written subtitles should sound like spoken language)

Two characteristic features:

• Change of code (intersemiotic: oral to written)
• Oral message of the source AV text is present in the translated product. The oral and
written message are received simultaneously, allowing for comparison
between source text and target text.
• Six-second rule: In six seconds an average viewer can comfortably read the text
written on two full subtitle lines, when each line contains a maximum of some
37 characters, i.e. a total of 74 characters. This calculation implies a rather low
reading speed of some 145 words per minute (about 2.5 words per second).
Fansubs and videogames

• Fansubs: amateur subtitling and distribution of films (illegal!)

• Video game translation: blend of audiovisual translation and software localization:
games can be subtitled or dubbed or both
• The defining feature is «creativity and originality»
Renaming of characters
Neologisms
Rendering of non-standard dialects
TRANSCREATION: stresses the creative and transformative nature of the process
LOCALIZATION: «involves taking a product amd making it linguistically and culturally
appropriate to the target locale (country/region and language) where it will be used and sold
New technologies

• Computer-assisted translation tools

• Machine translation tolls

CAT tools: tools for the alignment of ST-TT pairs, concordancing of search terms and term
extraction (databases)
Increases work speed and facilitates consistency in the translation of a given term bu different
translations
MT tools: Bing Translator, Google Translate, Systran

Corpus-based theories

• Electronic corpus of naturally occurring texts which are processed and analysed with
software to investigate the use and pattern of the word-forms it contained
• Enables the more thorough analysis and discovery of major features of translated
language and is driving the development of automatic machine translations of
various types