TRANSLATION THEORIES INTRODUCTION SET 2

MAJOR THEORETICIANS OF TR STUDIES

1.1.Levy’s Approach:
Check translation theoretician Jiri Levy (1969, p.49) is a scientist who influenced the
translation researchers with his approach. Levy’s approach to translation process differs from
other translation theories because Levy takes the translator, translation process and the form
of the translated text into consideration and to the same extent he considers translation of a
written text as a branch of art.
According to Levy, it is of high importance to assign the communicative aspects of significant
formal properties of the foreign writer.
Literary work should not lose its literary value. Levy argues that artistic aspects of a work can
be determined by logic and that those aspects can be transferred with the same artistic value to
the target language free from its content, world and language and by replacing them with the
formal components of another language. (Stolze, 2001, p. 152)
Levy considers that the goal of translation is to stay with the original text message, to
comprehend and to transfer the original message.
Levy also emphasizes that translation is a recreating process while sticking by the original
text and that a text which is non-conforming with the original should not be produced.
Levy also underlines that certain formal and basic features of a text should be saved as a basic
rule, however, non-functional formal structures should not necessarily be saved (Göktürk,
2002, p.40-41).
Translation should be consistent and holistic and the goal of translation should be recreating
the effect of the source text in another language. Levy, who adopts “faithful translation”
method, takes translation process as a “decision making” process (Aksoy, 2002, p. 34-35).
Levy states the goal of a translator as: it is a must for a translator that he is supposed to have
gains and experiences in his field.
As a result he is supposed to save the artistic and aesthetic values of the original text during
translation process. The translator should also remember that he is expected to translate the
original text in such a way that the target reader can clearly understand the message. Levy’s
view is also shared by Lieken-Genvig (1995:58). Genvic, just like Levy asserts that
translation process is made up of two phases. One is comprehending phase and the other is
transmitting the comprehended message
1.2.Koller’s Approach :
Koller, who produced plentiful works of translation and analyzed different dimensions of
translation, brings forward the equivalence issue in translation. In his work “Grundprobleme
der Übersetzungstheorie, he pronounces that translation process is a kind of interpretation art.
According to Koller (1972, p.47), phonological, morphological and syntactic units need to be
transferred to the target language with a linguistic interpretation during translation. In other
words, Koller expects that translator will first internalize the original text in both structural

1
and semantic terms and then will find the equivalent patterns to be able to transfer the original
text to the target language and when necessary will complete the translation process with his
own interpretation.
According to Koller, translation activity is an equivalence operation between the source text
and the text in the target language.
Koller, (1987:85) divides the equivalence mentioned in a quotation from Nida, into two:
Formal equivalence (Formale Äquivalenz) Dynamic equivalence (Dynamische Äquivalenz.)
In formal equivalence, equivalence in the source language text is dealt with in terms of
content and form. Here the translator seeks for fidelity in order to make a transfer sentence-
for-sentence and word-for-word. “Word-forword” or “”literal translation” is based on this
equivalence principle.
Source text writer in his work develops a certain style and uses some artistic expressions and
preciosity in order to beautify the text. When the translator, who transfers it to the target
language, fails to reflect these artistic values and preciosity as in the source language, the
produced text loses its artistic quality and turns into a plain text. Therefore, formal
equivalence is of great importance while transferring especially literary works.
In dynamic equivalence, the goal is to produce a natural text in the target language, to make it
comprehendible, avoiding any misunderstanding, in other words, it should not have a
complicated or confusing meaning and thus, equivalence effect should be provided.
A translator trying to achieve a dynamic equivalence seeks ways to set equivalence between
two languages in both content and form. Additionally, he pays attention to the similarity in
terms of the relations between the original text and its reader and those of the produced text
and its receptors. While doing this, the text in the target language might be longer than the
original text or it might require more words.
This is not just because of the structural difference between the two languages but also due to
the fact that the translator wants the produced text to be understood easily and needs to
provide some additional information related to the subject matter to be able to establish the
necessary equivalence between the two languages as well as not to force the capacity of the
receptors (readers).
Koller (1987:86), based upon the opinions of Nida, divides the source of issues that might
occur in equivalence understanding in three groups: An equivalent term might not exist in the
target language culture.
Source language and target language might have differences such as expressing two
connected terms in one term. For instance, Swedish has two terms for “grandfather”. They use
“farfar” for father’s father but “”morfar” for mother’s father whereas German and English
languages offer only one word “grandfather/Großvater”.
Similarly, in Turkish there is no such a difference. Source language and target language may
differ from each other in usage of certain indicators (words) for certain states and
circumstances. In dynamic equivalence, the focus is on the message and the receptor of the
message. More accurately, in dynamic equivalence, translator is supposed to determine
primarily to whom the original text addresses, more clearly, at which social group (children,

2
soldiers, doctors, lower or upper class, an occupational group which requires a superior-
subordinate relationship, etc) it is aimed and then present the text in the target language
according to the culture of that social group.
After all, translator’s task while analyzing the source text is to examine the communicational
function of the source text on the one hand, which means solving the message that the foreign
writer wants to transmit to the receptor (reader) and on the other side to present the text in
another mechanism for the receptors of the target language, determining the linguistic
properties of the original text and transferring it to the target language with an equivalent
method.
Communicational translation theory, defended by Nida as well, keeps the formal aspect of the
content in the background while focusing on the communicational role of the meaning
instead.
For this purpose, Nida suggests a principle which he calls “dynamic equivalence”, which
advocates that translator should pay attention to the communicational value of the text in the
target language. Any principle which disregards the formal aspect of a message and which is
based on direct transfer of content fits in free translation understanding (Aktaş, 1996 s. 74).
Transferring the source text to the target language by keeping the equivalence depends on
analyzing the style of the foreign writer. What do we mean with the term of style? We need to
mention this issue. In its broadest terms, style is usage of a language in a certain context by a
certain writer for a certain purpose (Altay, 1992:26).
In another saying, it is that the translator picks up and uses language items with his own
criteria in order to transmit the thoughts of the source language user and add a certain
speciality to his words (Vardar, 1978:50). Shortly, we can describe this term that is both
related to oral and written language, especially literary works as linguistic properties of a text,
a discourse in its conventional meaning
1.3.Kloepfer’s Approach
The general idea of prioritizing formal properties of texts and that the message in the original
text may not be transferred to the target language in the same fashion led to source text based
translations during this period.
Later on it has been understood that it is not sufficient to deal with translation at only
equivalency level ,so scientists like Kloepfer started to think that the method to be followed in
translation is neither simply being faithful to the source text nor to meet the expectations of
the target text reader.
Kloepfer, who puts emphasis on the necessity that the mentioned factors during the translation
process should be considered altogether, also states that while the translator is reproducing a
linguistic work in the target language, he should do his best to make the original text be
comprehendible in the target language.
In other words, translator’s task is to reflect the language and culture of the source text in the
target text, yet symbolic meanings in the source text should not be rewritten casually, which
can be inferred from Kloepfer’s definition of translation.

3
“Translation is a creative writing but not rewriting in a random fashion; it is the writership of
the writer” (Göktürk, 2002, p.40).
Kloepfer takes sides with translation produced in accordance with the types of texts. Like
Levy, the issue that Kloepfer also lays emphasis on is the transfer of form and content. The
content of a translation is like two sides of a paper according to him.
In other words, Kloepfer summarizes translation as the photocopy of an original text. When
he introduces his view, Kloepfer defends that translators need to reflect all the beauty of the
original text in the translated text as they are. Kloepfer, who overemphasizes the content and
form issue, stresses that the aesthetic and artistic features of a text are determined by these
two elements. He states that the reader will enjoy, will have fun when these two elements are
transferred.
When Kloepfer argues his point, he defends that the value of each indicator in the source text,
their semantic fields, their connotations, self-significance, affective meaning and associative
meaning should be paid attention and the equivalence of all should be sought in the target
language and then transferred
Another issue that Kloepfer focuses on is that words or word groups should reflect the
implicit expressions .
As is known, figurative meaning of words are often used in theatre scripts in order to
entertain, excite, cheer, exhilarate, provoke or grieve the reader.
Kloepfer suggests that such linguistic indicators should be transferred as they are to the target
language. When faced with some difficulties due to the cultural differences, Kloepfer, just
like Levy, suggests that interpretation should take place.
Translator, when transferring the events those do not exist in another culture, naturally will
have to apply to the act of interpretation, which we call “hermeneutics”. Kloepfer favours
interpretation which is as short as possible considering the reader. 1
1.4.Apel’s Approach
Another theoretician who differs from other linguistic approaches and who has a similar view
as Kloepfer’s is Apel. Apel focuses especially on the transfers of implicit expressions of
words or word groups. Apel adopts Kloepfer’s view.
He, too, defends that all the properties of the source text should be primarily analyzed when
translating literary texts.
Ape, asserts that with Kloepfer’s view, understanding a text is the first dimension of
translation process. Apel calls the second dimension as the production process.
Apel frames his views on transferring the literary texts as follows (1983:30): “Literary texts
and amongst these theatre scripts are all works of art. Readers and the audience are
entertaining and having fun with these texts. When transferring such texts from one language
to another, translator must bear in mind some important points. These are all about the
content, style and meanings of indicators. With these elements which translator may not
ignore, translation product achieves an artistic vale.

4
All in all, Apel’s approach overlaps with Levy’s approach. Just like him, Levy, attaches
importance to the act of interpretation which we call “hermeneutic”, apart from the ones we
mentioned above. He defends that difficulties occurring while translating cultural words can
be coped with by using this method.
1.5.Reiss and Vermeer’s Approach
Reiss and Vermeer’s approach covers the effect of the produced literary texts on the reader,
which they call “skopostheorie”. “Skopos” as a word was first used by Hans J. Vermeer in
1978 and then in 1983 in more detailed fashion in his book “Articles on Translation
Theories”.
The word Skopos, derived from Greek means “target” “goal”. Vermeer’s Skopos Theory is
mainly based on literary theories which reflects a general shift to communication theory, text
linguistics, and text theory and in addition, reception theories (Baker, 2001, p.235).
According to this approach, during translation the target text is formed by the function aimed
to be realized by the target text in the target cultural setting. In another saying, translation
should be focused on the function aimed at the target text in its own cultural setting.
In this context, Skopos Theory forms a base for the approach “Ground of a General
Translation Theory” developed by Katharina Reiß and Hans J. Vermeer, as well. According to
this theory every translation is an action and every action has an aim or a purpose, likewise,
every translation has an aim.
At this point, translator is an actor who takes into consideration the cultural aspects that are
contributing factors in the source text and different aspects of the target culture during
translation process and who produces a new text on the related cultural platform.
Translator has more freedom because depending on the source text was replaced by
depending on purpose. Thus, target language, target culture and target reader are prominent.
Skopos Theory has a functional quality. The person who assigns a translator for the task of
translation has an aim. Translation should achieve the aim of the source text writer and on the
other hand, it should function by serving to the determined aim established in accordance with
the target world’s cultural properties.
While functioning in this direction a new text should be produced in such a way that it should
create the same effect in the target language. Bengi (1995, p.16) explains that this concept
could have three different uses according to Vermeer.
The first is the translation process.
The second is the result of translation, which covers the function of translation.
The third is the translation method, in other words, the aim of the method. Translation
according to Skopos, is” not primarily producing an exact equivalent of the source text but to
produce a new text in accordance with a certain aim or purpose (Vermeer, 2004 p.31).
Translator, as a member of a society of a certain culture and an individual, principally is free
to choose his own “Skopos” just as every individual is free to choose his own way of
behaviour. Translation depends on the reaction of a translator to a source text. Translator is
free to choose Skopos needed for a source text to be comprehended well by the aimed
5
recipients and also responsible for this task. If a source text is demonstrated in a way that the
translator intends to do, then it is properly comprehensible in conformity with (skopos) (Rifat,
2004, p.265). Bahadır and Dizdar (200
According to Vermeer, act of translation cannot be dissociated from the aim of the text
produced through translation. “An act of translation could also be called as a constant
intercultural transfer. “As a work and an activity, translation includes the most appropriate
analyze derived from ancient cultural links of a phenomenon and transfer of these links to the
target cultural links” (Reiß and Vermeer, 1984, p.46).
Skopos in its general meaning is translation for a certain purpose (Vermeer, 1996, p.4).
It seems that Vermeer’s theory divides this concept into three, namely; “translator’s
intention”, the aim of the original text” and “the function of translation”.
This division shows that the word “purpose” is not limited to the aim of the original text
(Vermeer, 1996, p.7-8). In that case it is apparent that the aim of the employer and the
translator play a great role as much as the aim of the original text. By Vermeer’s definition
(1989, p.177) “aim” is fulfilling a set of acts by the translator towards the end point and he
describes these acts as follows: a set of actions fulfilled during the translation process and aim
(translator’s intention). the style or mode of translation (aim of produced text) from now on
the translator’s aim in using this specific mode.
The purpose of translated text, its future function (function of translation). To deal with
Vermeer’s theory in more detail, the theory comprises “work”, and “translator” who is
considered to be in a position of expert.
The task and decision making power of translator is quite broad in this approach.
As of the properties of the theory, translator-employer, translator-source text writer and
translator-reader relationships draw attention. Where the aim of the translator is set by the
“employer”, the translator is considered to be an “expert”.
The access of the translation to the target text reader depends primarily on how the employer
sets the aim of translation (Yazıcı, 2005, p. 145). Skopos theory places the translator in the
centre. The translator holds all the responsibility; at the same time the translator himself
decides whether the translation is good or bad.
Vermeer and Toury are pioneers of target oriented approaches, however, these two
theoreticians fall apart from each other as it is understood from their definitions of translation
at the very beginning.
According to Toury, every text counts as translation in the target culture is translation whereas
Toury presents a more narrow-scoped definition and defines translation as an end product of
an action. Toury focuses on the position of translation in the target culture whereas Vermeer
rather sets off with reference to the aim of translation. For these two theories it could be said
that Toury’s is “product oriented” and Vermeer’s is “process-oriented” theories
This approach named “Skopos Theory” is also adopted by famous translator Nord (1993:9).
Nord explains their approach like:”Skopos theory takes translation act as a meaningful
process, which means what the aim of translation product is and what it could give to the
reader”.

6
. RESULT
By the second half of the twentieth century morphologic properties of texts were prioritized,
that is source text oriented translations were popular, however, in the world globalizing over
time, it has been observed that source text oriented translations could not create the same
effect on the target audience.
For this reason target text oriented translations took place and target audience was expected to
have more effect from the translated texts.
The better a source text is analyzed the more satisfactory translation will be achieved. If the
translator focuses only on words or sentences during translation he would be on the wrong
track.
The starting point should be the text and the text should be interpreted as a whole. Only then
the recipient audience can be accessed. Otherwise, translation would not be more than a
transfer of a text.
CL: Contrastive Linguistics
DE: The Dynamic Equivalence Method
ELT: English Language Teaching
ES: The Ethnographical Semantic Method
ESP: English for specific purposes
FLT: Foreign Language Teaching
L1: First Language (The Native Language)
L2: Second Language (The Foreign Language)
LSP: Language for Specific Purposes
SL: Source Language
SLT: Source Language Text
SVO: Subject-Verb-Object
TA: Target Language Audience
T/ I: Translating and Interpreting
TL: Target Language
TLT: Target Language Text
TT: Translation Teaching VSO: Verb-Subject-Object