Translation

studies
Translation studies is an academic interdiscipline dealing with the
systematic study of the theory, description and application
of translation, interpreting, and localization. As an interdisciplinary,
translation studies borrow much from the various fields of study that
support translation. These include comparative literature, computer
science, history, linguistics, philology, philosophy, semiotics,
and terminology.
The term "translation studies" was coined by the Amsterdam-based
American scholar James S. Holmes in his 1972 paper "The name and
nature of translation studies“.Writers in English occasionally use the term
"translatology" (and less commonly "traductology") to refer to translation
studies, and the corresponding French term for the discipline is
usually traductologie (as in the Société Française de Traductologie). In the
United States, there is a preference for the term "translation and interpreting
studies" (as in the American Translation and Interpreting Studies
Association), although European tradition includes interpreting within
translation studies (as in the European Society for Translation Studies).
 Early studies
Historically, translation studies have long been "prescriptive" (telling
translators how to translate), to the point that discussions of translation
that were not prescriptive were generally not considered to be about
translation at all. When historians of translation studies trace early
Western thought about translation, for example, they most often set the
beginning at the renowned orator Cicero's remarks on how he used
translation from Greek to Latin to improve his oratorical abilities—an early
description of what Jerome ended up calling sense-for-sense translation.
The descriptive history of interpreters in Egypt provided
by Herodotus several centuries earlier is typically not thought of as
translation studies—presumably because it does not tell translators
how to translate. In China, the discussion on how to
translate originated with the translation of Buddhist sutras during
the Han dynasty.
 Calls For An Academic Discipline
In 1958, at the Fourth Congress of Slavists in Moscow, the debate
between linguistic and literary approaches to translation reached a
point where it was proposed that the best thing might be to have a
separate science that could study all forms of translation without
being wholly within linguistics or literary studies. In comparative
literature, translation workshops were promoted in the 1960s in
some American universities, such as the University of
Iowa and Princeton.
During the 1950s and 1960s, systematic linguistic-oriented studies of
translation began to appear. In 1958, the French linguists Jean-Paul
Vinay and Jean Darbelnet carried out a contrastive comparison of
French and English. In 1964, Eugene Nida published Toward a Science
of Translating, a manual for Bible translation influenced to some extent
by Harris's transformational grammar. In 1965, J. C. Catford theorized
translation from a linguistic perspective.[7] In the 1960s and early 1970s,
the Czech scholar Jiří Levý and the Slovak scholars Anton Popovič and
František Miko worked on the stylistics of literary translation.
These initial steps toward research on literary translation were
collected in James S. Holmes' paper at the Third International
Congress of Applied Linguistics held in Copenhagen in 1972. In that
paper, "The Name and Nature of Translation Studies", Holmes asked
for the consolidation of a separate discipline and proposed a
classification of the field. Gideon Toury later presented a visual "map"
of Holmes' proposal in his 1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and
Beyond
Before the 1990s, translation scholars tended to form particular
schools of thought within the prescriptive, descriptive and Skopos
paradigms. Since the "cultural turn" in the 1990s, the discipline has
tended to divide into separate fields of inquiry, where research projects
run parallel to each other, borrowing methodologies from each other
and from other academic disciplines.
 Equivalence
Through the 1950s and 1960s, discussions in translation studies tended
to concern how best to attain "equivalence". The term "equivalence" had
two distinct meanings, corresponding to different schools of thought. In
the Russian tradition, "equivalence" was usually a one-to-one
correspondence between linguistic forms or a pair of authorized
technical terms or phrases, such that "equivalence" was opposed to a
range of "substitutions
However, in the French tradition of Vinay and Darbelnet, drawing
on Bally, "equivalence" was the attainment of equal functional value,
generally requiring changes in form. Catford's notion of equivalence in
1965 was as in the French tradition. In the course of the 1970s, Russian
theorists adopted the wider sense of "equivalence" as
something resulting from linguistic transformations.
At about the same time, the Interpretive Theory of Translation introduced
the notion of deverbalized sense into translation studies. It draws a
distinction between word correspondences and sense equivalences and
shows the difference between dictionary definitions of words and phrases
(word correspondences) and the sense of texts or fragments thereof in a
given context (sense equivalences).
Equivalence discussions accompanied typologies of translation solutions
(also called "procedures," "techniques," or "strategies"), as in Fedorov
(1953) and Vinay and Darbelnet (1958).
1958, Loh Dianyang's Translation: Its Principles and Techniques drew
on Fedorov and English linguistics to present a typology of translation
solutions between Chinese and English.
In these traditions, discussions of how to attain equivalence have
mostly been prescriptive and related to translator training.
 Descriptive Translation Studies
Descriptive translation studies aim to build an empirical
descriptive discipline to fill one section of the Holmes map. The
idea that scientific methodology could be applicable to cultural
products was developed by the Russian Formalists in the early
years of the 20th century and recovered by various researchers
in comparative literature.
It was now applied to literary translation. Part of this application
was the theory of polysystems (Even-Zohar 1990), in which
translated literature is seen as a sub-system of the receiving or
target literary system. Gideon Toury bases his theory on the need
to consider translations as "facts of the target culture" for the
purposes of research. The concepts of "manipulation"[12] and
"patronage"[13] have also been developed in relation to literary
translations.
Translation
as
A Product
&
A Process
Overview:
• Translatin strategies and pricedures

• Ca7ird and ‘translatin shios’

• Vinay and Darbelnet’s midel
• Optin, markedness and stylistc shios
• The cignitve pricess if translatin
• Ways if investgatng cignitve pricessing
Key piints based in Vinay and Darbelnet’s midel:
1. Translatin Strategies:
Vinay and Darbelnet propose twi overarching strategies in translaton:
•Direct Translatin: This refers to the literal or word-for-word translaton when
the structure and meaning of the source text (ST) can be directly transferred
into the target text (TT) without any signifcant changes.
•Oblique Translatin: When direct translaton is not feasible due to structural or
cultural diferences, the translator must resort to more creatve and adaptve
methods to convey the meaning.
2. Translatin Pricedures:
Under these two strategies, Vinay and Darbelnet identfy seven key procedures,
which are divided as follows:

Direct Translatin Pricedures:

1.Birriwing: The direct transfer of a word from the source language (SL) to the target
language (TL). This ofen happens when there is no equivalent in the TL. “sushi”.
2.Calque: A special type of borrowing where the SL phrase is translated literally. An
example is the French term science-fccon as a calque of the English term.
3. Literal Translatin: A word-for-word translaton, generally applied when
translatng between languages from the same family. For instance, translatng
“I lef my spectacles on the table downstairs” into Arabic as
‫تركت نظارتي فوق الطاولة أسفل الدرج‬

Oblique Translatin Pricedures:

4. Transpisitin: This involves changing one part of speech for another, such
as turning a verb into a noun, without altering the meaning. For example,
translatng upon her rising (noun) into as soon as she got up (verb).
5.Midulatin: Changing the perspectve or semantcs of the SL to ft TL
norms. This is used when a literal translaton is grammatcally correct but
unsuitable. For instance, "It is not difcuct to show" might become
‫ "ليس من الصعوبة أن تتفاخر‬in Arabic.
6. Equivalence: Translating idioms or fixed expressions that convey
the same meaning but are linguistically different. An example hit the
nail on the head(to describe something exactly right)
7. Adaptation: When a cultural element in the SL does not exist in
the TL, adaptation replaces it with something more familiar to the
target culture. For example:
."‫هبإههى لاههسهوق كهأنهههعنتر‬
‫ ذه ل‬Adapted Translation: "He went to the market like
a knight in shining armour."
Additinal Pricedures:
•Amplifcatin: Adding more words to the translaton due to
syntactc expansion, e.g., the charge against him becomes the
charge brought against him in the TL.
•Ecinimy: The opposite of amplifcaton, using fewer words in the
TL compared to the SL.
Ca7irdUs Translatin Shios:
CaRord introduced translaton shifs as linguistc changes that occur when
translatng a source text (ST) into a target text (TT), moving away from strict
formal correspondence. He identfed two major types:

1.Level Shios: These occur when a concept is expressed at diferent linguistc

levels between the ST and TT. For instance, what is grammatcally expressed in
one language may be expressed lexically in another. An example is Arabic verbs
indicatng tense, like‫لعب‬
" ‫( " كهان يههه‬he was playing), being expressed in English with
auxiliary verbs, "he was playing."
2- Categiry Shios:
These are divided into four subtypes:
•Structural Shios: Changes in grammatcal structure between languages.
For example, "I like cofee" (subject pronoun + verb + object) becomes
"‫اههههوة‬
‫عجبني لق‬
‫ " يههه‬in Arabic (indirect object pronoun + verb + subject).
•Class Shios: Changes from one part of speech to another. For example,
the English adjectve "educatonal" might be translated into Arabic as the
noun phrase ‫عليمي‬
" ‫( "ذو طهابهعه تهههه‬having an educatonal nature).
•Unit Shifts (Rank Shifts): Occur when there is a change in the
rank or hierarchical level during translation. For instance, an
English word like "book" could be translated into Arabic as a
phrase, "‫( "قااطعاة مناا الكتابة‬a piece of writing).
•Intra-system Shifts: These happen when the ST and TT use
different grammatical systems for the same concept. For
example, the uncountable English word "information" could be
translated into Arabic in the plural form as ‫ت‬
"‫( "معلو ما‬pieces of
information).
3. Impirtance and Critcisms:
CaRord’s work pioneered the systematc applicaton of linguistc
theory to translaton. However, his model has been critqued for
being too statc and reliant on invented examples rather than real-
world translatons. Later, scholars noted that his focus on linguistc
shifs overlooked broader contextual and cultural factors that
impact translaton decisions.
4. Cimmunicatve Functin and Equivalence:
Catford distinguished between formal correspondence (matching
grammatical structures between languages) and textual equivalence
(maintaining the same communicative function in context). This focus
on communicative function marked a shift towards more context-
sensitive translation approaches, bridging the gap between formal
linguistic theory and practical translation.
1. Overview if Vinay and DarbelnetUs Midel:
Vinay and Darbelnet’s model is one of the most infuental frameworks in

translaton studies. It categorizes translaton into twi strategies:

•Direct (literal) Translatin
•Oblique (free) Translatin
These strategies are further broken down into specifc pricedures that
translators can use depending on the linguistc and cultural distance
between the source language (SL) and the target language (TL).
2-Direct Translatin Pricedures:
Direct translaton is applied when the source language (SL) and target language (TL)
share similar structures. It includes three key procedures:
1.Birriwing: A word is taken directly from the SL without modifcaton. For example,
Arabic borrows the English word‫هت‬
" ‫( " إنهترهن‬Internet).
2.Calque: A phrase is translated literally from the SL to the TL. For instance, the English
phrase "skyscraper" is translated into Arabic as ‫حاب‬
" ‫( " نههاطحة س ه‬literally, "cloud scraper").
3.Literal Translatin: A word-for-word translaton, appropriate when SL and TL have
similar grammatcal structures. For example, translatng the Arabic‫ب‬
"‫ "أنا طهلاهه‬to the
English "I am a student."
3-Oblique Translatin Pricedures:
Oblique translaton is used when structural or cultural diferences between the
source language (SL) and target language (TL) require a more fexible approach. It
includes four main procedures:
1.Transpisitin: This involves changing the grammatcal category of words while
retaining the same meaning. For example, the Arabic noun phrase "‫" لاههمعهرفة لاههجيدة‬
(the good knowledge) could be translated into English as the verb phrase "to know
well."
2.Midulatin: This shifs the perspectve or focus of the sentence. For example, the
Arabic "‫بهههه‬
‫( " لاههطقس ارد‬The weather is cold) could be translated into English as "It is
cold."
4. Examples if Pricedures in Actin:
1.Birriwing: The English word "pizza" is used unchanged in Arabic as "‫بههههزها‬
‫يت‬ ."
2.Calque: The English phrase "skyscraper" is translated into Arabic as ‫حاب‬
" ‫" نههاطحة س ه‬
(literally, "cloud scraper").
3.Literal Translatin: The phrase "She is reading" can be translated literally into Arabic
as "‫تهههه‬
‫قرهأ‬ ‫هي‬."
The Impirtance if Cintext:
Vinay and Darbelnet stress that the selecton of a translaton strategy depends mainly
on the context, including the genre, target audience, and purpose of the translaton.
This fexible model allows translators to choose the most suitable procedure based on
these factors, ensuring an accurate and appropriate translaton.
Peter Newmark’s distncton between semancc and communicacie translaton is central
to his works Approaches to Transcacon (1981) and A Textbook of Transcacon (1988). He
challenges Nida’s receptor-oriented approach, arguing that equivalent efect between
source and target texts is ofen unatainable due to diferences in language and culture.
Newmark pripises twi translatin types:
•Cimmunicatve translatin: Seeks to produce a similar efect on the target audience as
the original had on its readers, aligning with Nida’s dynamic equivalence.
•Semantc translatin: This type of translaton focuses on conveying the precise meaning
of the original text within the syntactc and semantc limits of the target language,
resembling formal equivalence.
He distances himself from the idea of full equivalent efect, using the
example of translatng Homer to demonstrate the impossibility of
recreatng the original impact across diferent temporal and cultural
contexts. Newmark also critques Nida’s approach, questoning if
target readers should have everything fully explained. Unlike literal
translaton, semantc translaton respects context and may interpret
or explain elements like metaphors.
A Cimparisin if
Newmark’s
semantc and
cimmunicatve
translatin
 Equivalence
&
Effect

Introduction
In the 1950s and 1960s, translation theory evolved from a
debate between literal and free translation to a more systematic
exploration of key linguistic issues. By the mid-20th century,
theorists began to adopt a more structured approach, focusing
on how meaning is transferred between languages and what
constitutes an equivalent translation.
 Roman Jakobson's 1959 Paper:
•Jakobson introduced three types of translation:
• Intralingual: Translation within the same language, such as paraphrasing.
• Interlingual: Translation between different languages.
• Intersemiotic: Translation between different sign systems, such as from text
to visual symbols.
Jakobson focused particularly on interlingual translation, which is the most
common form of translation between different languages.
Jakobson's categorization of translation expanded the understanding of how
meaning can be transformed within or across language systems. While the most
commonly discussed form is interlingual, the inclusion of intralingual and
intersemiotic translations shows the broad scope of translation beyond mere words.

Linguistic Meaning & Equivalence:

Jakobson's theory is rooted in Saussure's ideas of the signifier (the form of a
word) and the signified (the concept the word refers to).
The relationship between the two is arbitrary, meaning that there is no inherent
connection between the word and the concept it represents.
Example: The word “cheese” in English vs the word “!‫ ”ج‬in Arabic—while
they may both refer to cheese, their meanings differ slightly. Language is
arbitrary. The same concept (e.g., cheese) can be expressed differently in
different languages, not only in sound but also in the specific nuances it carries.
Translators must navigate these differences to convey the correct meaning.
Challenges of Equivalence:
Full equivalence between words in different languages is rare, as languages
encode meaning differently.
Translators must focus on achieving equivalent messages, not simply
translating words directly.
Equivalence is one of the major challenges in translation. A direct, one-to-one
translation often doesn't exist because different languages uniquely categorize
and describe the world. The focus should be on maintaining the intent and
meaning of the message rather than sticking rigidly to the words themselves.

Universalism vs Relativity :
•Universalism argues that, despite linguistic differences, humans share a common way
of thinking and perceiving the world. This suggests that meaning can be translated across
languages because the underlying concepts are similar.
•Relativity asserts that language shapes thought and perception. Different languages
create distinct ways of experiencing and interpreting the world.
 Translation as Message Substitution:
It emphasizes that translation is not merely about replacing words but
about conveying the full meaning and intent of the message in a different
language. This involves understanding both the context and culture of the
source and target languages. Since direct word-for-word translations often
fail to capture nuances, translators must focus on substituting messages
that maintain the original's intent, even if the words differ.

Cross-Linguistic Differences:
Examples:
•Gender differences: In Arabic, "house" (‫ )معلمة‬is feminine, while in English,
“teacher" is neuter. Such gender distinctions can affect how nouns and related
words are used in sentences.
•Verb aspect: In Russian, verbs differ based on whether the action is complete or
ongoing, impacting how time and action are expressed.
These differences, along with others like word order, plurality, and tense,
challenge translators to convey the original meaning while adapting to the
linguistic norms of the target language.
Nida and 'The Science of Translating:
Eugene Nida's translation theory developed from his extensive work
translating the Bible, where he trained translators with limited experience.
Nida’s theory is captured in two major works: Toward a Science of
Translating and The Theory and Practice of Translation. These works attempt
to bring Bible translation into a scientific framework by incorporating
linguistic theories.

The Influence of Chomsky:

Nida’s theory draws heavily on Chomsky’s model, which breaks sentences
into different structural levels:
1.Phrase-structure rules generate a deep structure, the underlying
meaning of a sentence.
2.Transformational rules modify the deep structure (e.g., transforming
active voice to passive voice).
3.The sentence is then transformed into its surface structure (the final
form of the sentence) using phonological and morphemic rules.
 Nida’s Application of Chomsky’s Model:
Nida adapts Chomsky’s ideas into a three-stage translation process:
1.Analysis: The surface structure of the Source Text (ST) is broken down into deep
structure elements.
2.Transfer: These deep structures are transferred into the Target Text (TT).
3.Restructuring: The deep structures are reassembled in the TT to reflect the
correct meaning and style.

Kernel Structures and Back Transformation:

Kernel sentences are the basic building blocks for language, as they require
minimal transformation. Nida and Taber emphasize that kernel structures are more
universally shared between languages than more complex surface structures.
The process of back transformation simplifies complex surface structures into
their core kernel components, which are categorized into:
1. Events (verbs: run, think),
2. Objects (nouns: man, horse),
3. Abstracts (quantities and qualities: slowly, red),
4. Relational (prepositions, conjunctions: into, of, and).
For example:
The phrase "will of God" would back-transform to "God wills," where
God is the object and wills is the event.
"Creation of the world" becomes "the world is created."

The Nature of Meaning:

Eugene Nida’s exploration into the nature of meaning, influenced by advances
in semantics and pragmatics, marks a significant shift from the traditional
idea that words have fixed meanings. Instead, Nida proposes a functional
definition of meaning, highlighting how words acquire meaning through
context and can evoke different responses depending on cultural factors.
 Types of Meanings:
1. Linguistic Meaning: Refers to the relationship between linguistic structures,
borrowing elements from Chomsky’s model.
The same word may convey different meanings depending on the grammatical
structure. For instance:
1. His house means possession: “he owns a house.”
2. His journey refers to an action: “he performs a journey.”
3. His kindness refers to a quality: “Kindness is a characteristic of him.”
2. Referential Meaning:
1. This is the denotative or dictionary meaning of a word.
2. Example: Son denotes a male child.

3. Emotive or Connotative Meaning:

1. Refers to the emotional or associative meaning a word carries.
2. Example: In “Don’t worry about that, son,” the word “son” could be a term
of endearment or, depending on the context, sound patronizing.
 Techniques to Determine Meaning:
Nida outlines a series of linguistic techniques that translators can use to determine
the precise meaning of words. These techniques help differentiate between similar
words in related lexical fields.

Hierarchical Structuring:
Organises words according to levels of specificity. For example:
Animal is the superordinate term, and goat, dog, and cow are hyponyms.

Componential Analysis:
Break down words into their component features to distinguish them.
For instance, family relationship terms such as grandmother, mother, and cousin
can be analyzed based on:
• Sex: male or female
• Generation: same, one generation apart, two or more generations apart
• Lineality: direct ancestor/descendant or not.
 Example of Componential
Analysis:

Semantic Structure Analysis:

•Semantic structure analysis is another technique Nida proposes to break down
complex terms with multiple meanings.
• For example, the word spirit can signify different things, such as:
• Demons, angels, gods, ghosts, ethos, or even alcohol.
• Nida visually separates these meanings based on specific characteristics, such as
human versus non-human or good versus bad.
 This technique helps the translator recognize that certain words, like spirit, can have
varied meanings based on the context in which they are used. For instance, spirit may
not always have a religious connotation, and even within religious contexts, terms like
Holy Spirit may carry different connotations depending on the target culture. The
emotive or connotative value of the word is heavily shaped by pragmatic use—how the
word is understood and used in everyday communication.

Importance of Context:
Context plays a crucial role in understanding the meaning of words, particularly
for metaphors and cultural idioms.
• For example, the Hebrew idiom bene Chuppah (literally, "children of the
bridechamber") does not refer to children but rather to wedding guests,
especially the bridegroom’s friends.
• This example shows how idiomatic expressions often diverge from their
literal meaning, making context critical in translation.
 Clarifying Ambiguities and Cultural Differences:
Nida emphasizes that techniques like semantic structure analysis help:
Clarify ambiguities in language, especially when a word has multiple meanings.
Explain obscure passages where the meaning may not be immediately clear.
Identify cultural differences, helping translators navigate and convey culturally
specific terms.

How Helpful is Componential Analysis for Translation?

Componential analysis is highly useful when translating between Arabic and English for several
reasons:
Clarifying Relationships:
1. Arabic uses more specific kinship terms compared to English. For example, (‫( )عم‬Am) and (
(‫(خال‬Khal) both translate to an uncle in English but refer to different relatives in Arabic
(paternal vs maternal). Componential analysis ensures that the translator conveys these
nuances accurately.
Avoiding Misinterpretation:
1. Without this breakdown, important distinctions could be lost. For instance, translating ((‫ابن عم‬
(Ibn Am) simply as "cousin" in English loses the paternal relation embedded in the Arabic term.
Cultural Sensitivity:
In Arab cultures, the distinction between maternal and paternal relatives is
significant regarding social and familial roles. Recognizing these differences
through componential analysis allows translators to maintain cultural sensitivity
in translation.
In summary, componential analysis helps ensure precision and maintain the
cultural context when translating kinship terms between Arabic and English,
which is crucial given the structural differences between the two languages.

Formal and Dynamic Equivalence:

Eugene Nida's translation theory introduces two main types of equivalence:
1.Formal Equivalence: Focuses on closely matching the form and content of the source
text, preserving its structure and grammar. It's often used in academic or legal translations,
emphasizing accuracy.
2.Dynamic Equivalence: This approach aims to create a similar response in the target
audience as the original audience. It prioritizes naturalness and cultural adaptation,
adjusting grammar and references to make the text feel familiar to the target audience. The
key goal is to focus on meaning rather than form, making it common in religious and
general translations.
Criticism of Nida’s Work:
•Equivalence and Response: Critics like Lefevere continue to engage in a lively debate about the
feasibility of achieving the same effect across cultures. Their concerns about over-translation keep the field
of translation studies dynamic and evolving.
•Subjectivity: Equivalence is seen as subjective and difficult to measure.
•Cultural Adaptation: Critics worry that adapting cultural elements, such as replacing a "holy kiss" with a
"handshake," may dilute the original culture's essence.
•Religious Concerns: Some criticized Nida for altering religious texts, seeing it as sacrilegious.
Lasting Impact:
Despite these criticisms, Nida’s systematic approach to translation continues to influence scholars like Peter
Newmark and Werner Koller, offering a foundational balance between accuracy and cultural sensitivity in
translation.

Newmark: Semantic and Communicative Translation:

Peter Newmark shifts away from Nida’s equivalent effect, which he views as
unrealistic. He introduces two key translation approaches:
1.Communicative Translation:
1. Goal: Recreate the same effect on the target audience as the original had
on its readers.
2. Focus: Prioritizes naturalness and the target reader’s understanding.
3. Similar to Nida's dynamic equivalence.
 2. Semantic Translation:
1. Goal: Preserve the exact meaning and context of the original text.
2. Focus: Emphasizes fidelity to the source text’s form and meaning.
3. Comparable to formal equivalence.
Newmark critiques the full principle of equivalent effect, especially when
translating texts across different time periods and cultures, like Homer, as
identical responses are impossible. His terms aim to balance message accuracy
and reader understanding.

Criticism of Terminology Overload:

Many translation terms complicate the theoretical discussion. For instance,
Newmark relates Juliane House’s concepts of overt and covert translation to his
own terms and even acknowledges that communicative translation is nearly
identical to Nida's dynamic equivalence.
•Prescriptivism: Newmark has been criticized for his prescriptive approach.
His language includes subjective evaluations like "smooth" or "awkward
Discussion of Newmark’s Approach:
Peter Newmark's semantic and communicative translation concepts have yet to
spark as much debate as Nida's formal and dynamic equivalence, possibly
because they address similar issues related to the translation process and the
target audience. Newmark's terms focus on resolving the balance between the
source text (ST) and target text (TT), which remains a persistent challenge in
translation theory.