1.

Three categories of translation (according to Jakobson)

Russo-American structuralist Roman Jakobson differentiates three categories of
translation:
(1) intralingual translation, or ‘rewording’ – ‘an interpretation of verbal signs by means
of other signs of the same language’
(2) interlingual translation, or ‘translation proper’ – ‘an interpretation of verbal signs by
means of some other language’
(3) intersemiotic translation, or ‘transmutation’ – ‘an interpretation of verbal signs by
means of signs of non-verbal sign systems’.
The use of the term semiotics is significant here because translation is not always
limited to verbal languages. Intersemiotic translation, for example, occurs when a
written text is translated into a different mode, such as music, film or painting.
Intralingual translation would occur when we produce a summary or otherwise rewrite
a text in the same language, say a children’s version of an encyclopedia. It also occurs
when we rephrase an expression in the same language.
It is interlingual translation, between two different verbal sign systems, that has been
the traditional focus of translation studies.

2. Translation studies – key areas (Holmes’s map)

The objectives of the ‘pure’ areas of research are: (1) the description of the phenomena
of translation; and (2) the establishment of general principles to explain and predict
such phenomena (translation theory). The ‘theoretical’ branch is divided into general
and partial theories. By ‘general’, Holmes is referring to those writings that seek to
describe or account for every type of translation and to make generalizations that will
be relevant for translation as a whole.
The descriptive branch of ‘pure’ research in Holmes’s map is known as descriptive
translation studies. It may examine: (1) the product; (2) the function; and (3) the
process.
(1) Product-oriented DTS examines existing translations. This may involve the
description or analysis of a single ST–TT pair or a comparative analysis of several TTs of
the same ST (into one or more TLs). These smaller-scale studies can build up into a
larger body of translation analysis looking at a specific period, language or
text/discourse type. Holmes foresees that ‘one of the eventual goals of product-
oriented DTS might possibly be a general history of translations – however ambitious
such a goal might sound at this time’.
(2) By function-oriented DTS, Holmes means the description of the ‘function [of
translations] in the recipient sociocultural situation: it is a study of contexts rather than
texts’. Issues that may be researched include which texts were translated when and
where, and the influences that were exerted.
(3) Process-oriented DTS in Holmes’s framework is concerned with the psychology of
translation, i.e. it is concerned with trying to find out what happens in the mind of a
translator.
a) Medium-restricted theories subdivide according to translation by machine and
humans, with further subdivisions according to whether the machine/ computer is
working alone (automatic machine translation) or as an aid to the human translator
(computer-assisted translation), to whether the human translation is written or spoken
and to whether spoken translation (interpreting) is consecutive or simultaneous.
b) Area-restricted theories are restricted to specific languages or groups of languages
and/or cultures. Holmes notes that language-restricted theories (e.g. for the Japanese<
>English pair) are closely related to work in contrastive linguistics and stylistics.
c) Rank-restricted theories are linguistic theories that have been restricted to a level of
(normally) the word or sentence. At the time Holmes was writing, there was already a
trend towards text linguistics, i.e. analysis at the level of the text, which has since
become far more popular.
d) Text-type restricted theories look at discourse types and genres; e.g. literary,
business and technical translation.
e) The term time-restricted is self-explanatory, referring to theories and translations
limited according to specific time frames and periods. The history of translation falls into
this category.
f) Problem-restricted theories may refer to certain problems such as equivalence (a key
issue that came to the fore in the 1960s and 1970s) or to a wider question of whether
so-called ‘universals’ of translation exist.
The ‘applied’ branch of Holmes’s framework concerns applications to the practice of
translation:
Translator training: teaching methods, testing techniques, curriculum design;
Translation aids: such as dictionaries and grammars;
Translation criticism: the evaluation of translations, including the marking of student
translations and the reviews of published translations.

3. Reformation and translation of religious texts

4. Translation categories (according to John Dryden)
John Dryden’s brief description of the translation process would have enormous impact
on subsequent translation theory and practice. He reduces all translation to three
categories:
(1) ‘metaphrase’: ‘word by word and line by line’ translation, which corresponds to
literal translation;
(2) ‘paraphrase’: ‘translation with latitude, where the author is kept in view by the
translator, so as never to be lost, but his words are not strictly followed as his sense’;
this involves changing whole phrases and more or less corresponds to faithful or sense-
for-sense translation; words not so strictly followed as the sense; similar to sense-for-
sense translation
(3) ‘imitation’: ‘forsaking’ both words and sense; similar to free translation and
adaptation

5. Alienating vs Naturalizing (according to Schleiermacher)

“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 toward him.” (Schleiermacher 1813)
Schleiermacher’s preferred strategy is to move the reader towards the writer. This
doesn’t entail writing as the author would have done he written in German. That would
be similar to ‘naturalizing’ method that brought the foreign text in line with the typical
patterns of the TL. Instead, his method is to ‘give the reader, through the translation,
the impression he would have received as a German reading the work in the original
language’.
In this way, the translator, an expert in the TL, can help less competent but intelligent
German reader to appreciate the ST. To achieve this, the translator must adopt an
‘alienating’, ‘foreignizing’ method of translation.
There are several consequences of this approach, including:
(1) If the translator is to seek to communicate the same impression which he or she
received from the ST, this impression will also depend on the level of education and
understanding among the TT readership, and this is likely to differ from the translator’s
own understanding.
(2) A special language of translation may be necessary, for example compensating in one
place with an imaginative word where elsewhere the translator has to make to do with
a hackneyed expression that cannot convey the impression of the foreign.

6. Formal vs Dynamic equivalence as defined by Eugene Nida / Criticism of Nida’s

theory
(1) Formal equivalence: Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in
both form and content . . . One is concerned that the message in the receptor language
should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language.
Formal equivalence, later called ‘formal correspondence’, is thus keenly oriented
towards the ST structure, which exerts strong influence in determining accuracy and
correctness. Most typical of this kind of translation are ‘gloss translations’, with a close
approximation to ST structure, often with scholarly footnotes. This type of translation
will often be used in an academic or legal environment and allows the reader closer
access to the language and customs of the source culture.
(2) Dynamic equivalence: Dynamic, later ‘functional’, equivalence is based on what Nida
calls ‘the principle of equivalent effect’, where ‘the relationship between receptor and
message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original
receptors and the message’.
The message has to be tailored to the receptor’s linguistic needs and cultural
expectation and ‘aims at complete naturalness of expression’. ‘Naturalness’ is a key
requirement for Nida. Indeed, he defines the goal of dynamic equivalence as seeking
‘the closest natural equivalent to the source-language message’.
For Nida, the success of the translation depends above all on achieving equivalent effect
or response. It is one of the ‘four basic requirements of a translation’, which are:
(1) making sense
(2) conveying the spirit and manner of the original
(3) having a natural and easy form of expression
(4) producing a similar response.
The principle of equivalent effect and the concept of equivalence have come to be
heavily criticized for a number of reasons. One felt that equivalence was still overly
concerned with the word level, while others considered equivalent effect or response to
be impossible.
One of Nida’s fiercest critics is Edwin Gentzler. Gentzler denigrates Nida’s word for its
theological and proselytizing standpoint. In Gentzler’s view, dynamic equivalence is
designed to convert the receptors, no matter what their culture, to the dominant
discourse and ideas of Protestant Christianity. Ironically, Nida is also taken to task by
certain religious groups who maintain that the Word of God is sacred and unalterable;
the changes necessary to achieve dynamic equivalence would thus verge on the
sacrilegious.

7. Semantic vs Communicative translation as defined by Peter Newmark / Criticism of

Newmark’s theory
Newmark feels that the success of equivalent effect is ‘illusory’ and that ‘the
conflict of loyalties, the gap between emphasis on source and target language, will
always remain as the overriding problem in translation theory and practice’
(Newmark 1981: 38). Newmark suggests narrowing the gap by replacing the old
terms with those of ‘semantic’ and ‘communicative’ translation:
“Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as
possible to that obtained on the readers on the original. Semantic translation attempts
to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language
allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original. (Newmark 1981)
This description of communicative translation resembles Nida’s dynamic
equivalence in the effect it is trying to create on the TT reader, while semantic
translation has similarities to Nida’s formal equivalence. However, Newmark
distances himself from the full principle of equivalent effect, since that effect ‘is
inoperant if the text is out of TL space and time’.
In communicative as in semantic translation, provided that equivalent effect is
secured, the literal word-for-word translation is not only the best, it is the only
valid method of translation. (Newmark 1981)
Newmark has been criticized for his strong prescriptivism, and the language
of his evaluations still bears traces of what he himself called the ‘pre-linguistics
era’ of translation studies: translations are ‘smooth’ or ‘awkward’, while translation
itself is an ‘art’ (if semantic) or a ‘craft’ (if communicative). Nonetheless, the
large number of examples in Newmark’s work provide ample guidance and advice
for the trainee, and many of the questions he tackles are of important practical
relevance to translation. It should also be noted that in his later discourse (e.g.
Pedrola 1999, Newmark 2009: 34), he emphasized the aesthetic principles of
writing, the difference between ‘social, non-literary’ and ‘authoritative and serious’
translation and an ethical and truth-seeking function for translation.

8. Common problems of non-equivalence at word level / Strategies for dealing with

non-equivalence at word-level (according to Mona Baker)

Non-equivalence at word level means that the TL has not direct equivalent for a word
which occurs in the ST. The type and level of difficulty posed can vary tremendously
depending on the nature of non-equivalence. Different kinds of non-equivalence require
different strategies, some very straightforward, others more involved and difficult to
handle.

(a) Culture-specific concepts

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’. (e.g. speaker of the parliament)
(b) The source-language concept in not lexicalized in the target language
The source-language word may express a concept which is known in the target culture
but simply not lexicalized, that is not ‘allocated’ a target-language word to express it.
(e.g. landslide, meaning overwhelming majority)
(c) The source-language word is semantically complex
The source-language word may be semantically complex. This is a fairly common
problem in translation. Words do not have to be morphologically complex to be
semantically complex. In other words, a single word which consists of a single
morpheme can sometimes express a more complex set of meanings than a whole
sentence.
(d) The source and target languages make different distinctions in meaning
The target language may make more or fewer distinctions in meaning than the source
language. What one language regards as an important distinction in meaning another
language may not perceive as relevant. For example, Indonesian makes a distinction
between going out in the rain without the knowledge that it is raining and going out in
the rain with the knowledge that it is raining. English does not make this distinction,
with the result that if and English text referred to going out in the rain, the Indonesian
translator may find it difficult to choose the right equivalent, unless the context makes it
clear whether or not the person in question knew that it was raining.
(e) The target language lacks a superordinate
The target language may have specific words (hyponyms) but no general word
(superordinate) to head the semantic field. (e.g. facilities)

(f) The target language lacks a specific term (hyponym)

More commonly, languages tend to have general words (superordinates) but lack
specific ones (hyponyms), since each language makes only those distinctions in meaning
which seem relevant to its particular environment. (e.g. article – feature, survey, report,
critique, commentary, review)
(g) Differences in physical or interpersonal perspective
Physical perspective may be of more importance in one language than it is in another.
Physical perspective has to do with where things or people are in relation to one
another or to a place, as expressed in pairs of words such as come/go, take/bring,
arrive/depart, and so on. Perspective may also include the relationship between
participants in the discourse (tenor).
(h) Differences in expressive meaning
There may be a target-language word which has the same propositional meaning as the
source-language word, but it may have a different expressive meaning. The difference
may be considerable or it may be subtle but important enough to pose a translation
problem in a given context.
(i) Differences in form
There is often no equivalent in the target language for a particular form in the source
text. Certain suffixes and prefixes which convey propositional and other types of
meaning in English often have no direct equivalents in other languages.
(j) Differences in frequency and purpose of using specific forms
Even when a particular form does have a ready equivalent in the target language, there
may be a difference in the frequency with which it is used or the purpose for which it is
used.
(k) The use of loan words in the source text
The use of loan words in the source text poses a special problem in translation. Quite
apart from their respective propositional meaning, loan words such as au fait, chic and
alfresco in English are often used for their prestige value, because they can add an air of
sophistication to the text or its subject matter. This is often lost in translation because it
is not always possible to find a loan word with the same meaning in the target language.
Loan words also pose another problem for unwary translation, namely the problem of
false friends, or faux amis as they are often called. False friends are words or
expressions which have the same form in two or more languages but convey different
meanings. They are often associated with historically or culturally related languages
such as English, French, German, but in fact false friends also abound among totally
unrelated languages such as English, Japanese, and Russian.
The choice of suitable equivalent in a given context depends on a wide variety of
factors. Some of these factors may be strictly linguistic. Other factors may be extra-
linguistic. It is virtually impossible to offer absolute guidelines for dealing with the
various types of non-equivalence which exist among languages. There are some
strategies suggested which may be used to deal with non-equivalence ‘in some
contexts’. The choice of a suitable equivalent will always depend not only on the
linguistic system or systems being handled by the translator, but also on the way both
the writer of the source text and the producer of the target text, the translator, choose
to manipulate the linguistic systems in question.
Examples of strategies used by professional translators for dealing with various
strategies used by professional translators for dealing with various types of non-
equivalence.
(a) Translation by a more general word (superordinate)
This is one of the commonest strategies for dealing with many types of non-equivalence,
particularly in the area of propositional meaning. It works equally well in most, if not all,
languages, since the hierarchical structure of semantic fields is not language-specific.
(b) Translating by a more neutral/less expressive word
(c) Translation by cultural substitution
This strategy involves replacing a culture-specific item or expression with a target-
language item which does not have the same propositional meaning but is likely to have
a similar impact on the target reader. The main advantage of using this strategy is that is
gives the reader a concept with which s/he can identify, something familiar and
appealing. On an individual level, the translator’s decision to use this strategy will largely
depend on how much license is given to him/her by those who commission the
translation and the purpose of the translation. On a more general level, the decision will
also reflect, to some extent, the norms of translation prevailing in a given community.
(d) Translation using a loan word or a loan word plus explanation
This strategy is particularly common in dealing with culture-specific items, modern
concepts, and buzz words. Following the loan word with an explanation is very useful
when the word in question is repeated several times in the text. Once explained, the
loan word can then be used on its own; the reader can understand it and is not
distracted by further lengthy explanations.
(e) Translation by paraphrase using a related word
This strategy tends to be used when the concept expressed by the source item is
lexicalized in the target language but in a different form, and when the frequency with
which a certain form is used in the source text is significantly higher than would be
natural in the target language.
(f) Translation by paraphrase using unrelated words
In the concept expressed by the source item is not lexicalized at all in the target
language, the paraphrase strategy and still be used in some contexts. Instead of a
related word, the paraphrase may be based on modifying a superordinate or simply on
unpacking the meaning of the source item, particularly if the item in question is
semantically complex.
(g) Translation by omission
This strategy may sound rather drastic, but in fact it does no harm to omit translating a
word or expression in some contexts. If the meaning conveyed by a particular item or
expression is not vital enough to the development of the text to justify distracting the
reader with lengthy explanations, translators can and often do simply omit translating
the word or expression in question.
(h) Translation by illustration
This is useful option if the word which lacks an equivalent in the target language refers
to a physical entity which can be illustrated, particularly if there are restrictions on space
and if the text has to remain short, concise, and to the point.