Translation started with the transferring activities from Greek into Roman.

The
Romans
brought forward the idea that translation is not carried out by finding
equivalents between words. 
Modern Translation
Ezra Pound translation of Chinese poetry became famous in the 1920’s.
Pound insisted that not only should we translate what a man says but
what he means, the implication of the word.
Quine wrote Word and Object in 1960, presenting the idea that there is
no such thing as equivalence. It does not matter at which level we posit
the existence of equivalence: word-for-word, phase-for-phrase, sentence-
for-sentence -there will always be a problem of referentiality and
indeterminacy, dependent on text-type and the target of the translation.
Extremely influential is Eugene Nida, the authority on Bible Translation.
He believes there can be a science of translation. He presupposes some
kind of meaning underlying the original text, which is accessible to the
translator. This means that the form of the message becomes totally
unimportant. Words are essentially

labels and they can be changed or replaced in order to effect

communication, and can also be adjusted in the process. Words are
labels, the message comes from a higher source. The translator should
be invisible and the best translations have always been, according to
Nida (and still are, according to literary critics reviewing translated books)
those that read as if they were originals in the target language.

Translatability
Bloomfield was of the opinion that only scientific texts could be translated,
as "the meanings of language do not agree with scientific classification"
(Bloomfield 1933:75).

Mario Wandruszka claimed that both in theory as in practice it is

impossible to translate "completely" (in the German original: vollkommen)
a text from one language to another (Wandruszka 1971:133)
Si la traducción tuviera que reproducir todos los detalles de la estructura
formal léxica, morfológica y sintáctica del texto, sería, en efecto,
imposible. Pero la traducción no consiste en reproducir exactamente las
estructuras formales de un texto - eso sería copiar el texto, no traducirlo-,
sino en reproducir su contenido (y, en lo posible, su estilo).
(García Yebra 1984:34)
Octavio Paz in his booklet Traducción: literatura y literalidad writes in
favour of the possibility to translate: it is a question of degree, and what
you have to decide before you set out to translate is how to mix the
ingredients' sound and significance. We also have to take into account
the differences in culture:
... el mundo deja de ser un mundo y se escinde en naturaleza y
cultura. /.../ Las naciones son prisioneras de las lenguas que hablan: las
lenguas que sirven para comunicarnos también nos encierran en una
malla invisible de sonidos y significados.
(Paz 1990:12)
Holmes did not consider translation as a tool for language teaching and
learning. We have situated '(Teaching and) Learning Languages' under
Applied Translation, with the label "Learning Languages through
Translation".
THE PROCESS OF TRANSLATING
THE PRACTICAL APPROACH
the practical approach determines how to transfer the contents of the
source into the target. A model should account for the factors that
influence the decision-making, including communicative function, target
language textual style, potential audience, and the requirements of the
host culture and linguistic system.
2.1.2. Models for translating

The linguistic model studies the linguistic resources of the source and

target languages and the mechanisms available in the target language for
overcoming the structural differences between source and target that
appear in translation. Meaning is understood as a form of language re-
coding, and pragmatics is absent from it. Catford (1965) Vinay and
Darbelnet 1976 and Vázquez Ayora (1977) are the main representatives
for this kind of model, advocating the existence of equivalents, which
translators pick and choose from, at different levels.  Studies carried out
mainly in Germany on how translators work when actually processing a
text have proven that this model is not relevant to translating (Loerscher
1991).
The textlinguistic model takes into account the various uses of
language by speakers and writers in particular communicative situations.
The expansion of translation studies into discourse analysis and
pragmatics have shown that what a translator does is not exactly transfer
of meaning. It is the communicative values of the source text that are
transferred. 
Sociocultural translation advocates maintain that translations should
always read like translations. Lawrence Venuti in The Translator's
Invisibility published in 1995 said that translators should not be invisible
and that readers should be allowed to appreciate the source culture.
Translations should resist dominant target-language cultural values and
make it clear that the source text represents some linguistic and cultural
difference. Venuti calls this 'restive' or 'resistant' translation. 
If translators understand cultural difference, why can't the resources of
the target language be enlisted in its service?
(Neubert and Shreve 1992:4)
Resistant translation is a denial of the power of language and the infinite
novelty of expression that empowers every linguistic and textual system
(op. cit: 4).
The problem when transferring Venuti's theory into practice is that if it
becomes too difficult for the readers to read this restive text -written in
some kind of interlanguage to maintain rhythms etc. in the source
language- the readers will perhaps consider the possibility of learning the
source language instead of reading bad target language - the readers'
own!
The Computational model.  Today we speak of computer-assisted
translating. Human post-editing can nowadays improve machine
translation
The computer, as used in computer-assisted translation, is a tool for the
human translator and incorporates terminological/lexical assistance,
 encyclopaedic and knowledge-organisational assistance, translation-
strategic assistance and document management assistance.
Study of translation and interpretation: its goal is the use of language as a
tool in the future professional activity
Translator’s command of first tongue is even more important than his/her
proficiency in the L2.
The head of the Zürich school of translation and interpreting says:

The translator is immerse within a cultural transfer rather than a linguistic transfer. Requires him to be
bicultural more than bilingual.

MAJOR DIFFICULTIES PRESENT IN TRANSLATION INTO A FOREIGN LANGUAGE

1. Lack of proficiency in the target language

2. Lack of proficiency in the source language
3. Lack of intercultural competence or sensitivity

CHAPTER 4 TRANSLATION AS A LANGUAGETEACHING TOOL

Translation as a tool to improve awareness of differences between L1 and L2.
Crosslingual: uses L1 as the main reference.

Translation is a means that students use to confirm or refute hypotheses that they may have
formed about the TL.
Translation is simply another resource to be used sparingly according to the criteria of the teacher.

…it could also be argued that translation…is potentially a very powerful tool for language learning,

and to pretend that learners don’t have a first language is perverse. If, by comparing L1 and L2
language systems, the student’s insights into L2 are furthered, so much the better. (Soars and Soars

1991:5)

Duff says that “translation invites speculation and discussion” (1989:7), it develops accuracy, clarity

and flexibility.

MOs t translation will be into L1, translation into L2 being possible only at higher, post- First

certificate levels when there is more L2 competence. At school, even pre-university, this higher

level is difficult to find.

According to Christine Klein-Braley

…”would someone be prepared to pay to have the text we are about to work on translated? If the

answer is no, then the text is not a genuine translation job. The most important text types ruled out

by this criterion are (1) literary texts and (2) newspaper texts. 8Klein- Braley 1996:24)