WHAT IS TRANSLATION STUDIES?

A Brief historical overview:

❖ TRANSLATION as an academic subject is only about 50 years old.

❖ Before: Translation was mainly used for language teaching (thus secondary status in
academia)
❖ 1960s-1970s: communicative approach in Thories of English and Foreign Language
Teaching
❖ 1960s-1970s: translation workshop (USA); comparative literature; contrastive analysis
❖ 1950s and 1960s: more systematic, scientific (mainly linguistic) approach to Translation:
❖ e.g., Jean Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet (1958), George Mounin (1963); Eugene Nida
(1964); J. C. Catford (1965);
❖ EUGENE NIDA, Toward a Science of Translating, 1964

James S. Holmes (American-Dutch) 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’ ‘APPLIED’

Pure TS has 2 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)

Holmes’s map of TS

1
 The Main Objectives of Theories of Translation

• To understand what is ‘equivalence’.

• To know how to study ‘translation theories’.
• To distinguish between translation as a ‘process’ and translation as a ‘product’.
• Figure out different types of equivalence proposed by different scholars.
• Be familiar with the names of some scholars.
• Do we need to be familiar with translation theories in order to translate?
• How would you study translation theories? What are the main areas?
• What is equivalence?
• What is translation as a product?
• What is translation as a process?
• Have you ever heard of these names Nida, Catford, Jakobson, Newmark,, House,
Venuti, Bell, Gutt and Farghal?

To drive a car, for instance, it does not require you to understand how the engine of the car
works, but when you have basic knowledge of such mechanism, you will definitely drive your
car with self-confidence, free from worry and fear. The same holds true for translation theories.
In order to translate, you do not need to have a good knowledge of translation theories, but when
you have it, you will translate with self-confidence, free from worry and fear.

When theorizing, when developing your own translation theory, first identify a problem – a
situation of doubt requiring action, or a question in need of an answer. Then go in search of ideas
that can help you work on that problem. There is no need to start in any one paradigm, and
certainly no need to belong to one. The competent translator is not expected to restrict
him/herself to one translation orientation and/or paradigm, but rather travel among them in
search of informed solutions to problems.

2
 What’s Equivalence?

 Equivalence, by dictionary definition, is “something that has the same value, importance,
size, or meaning as something else” (Cambridge Learner‟s Dictionary 2001: 238).
 Equal + value = equivalence
 Here, one would not hesitate to conclude that the two things are not identical, but rather
similar. Such a conclusion is in line with Bassnett (1980/1991/2002) and House
(1977/1981/1997).
 Bassnett (2002: 36) is of a view that equivalence “should not be approached as a search
for sameness, since sameness cannot even exist between two TL versions of the same
text, let alone between the SL and the TL versions”. In a similar vein, House (1997: 26)
comments that equivalence should not be envisaged as “virtually the same thing” since,
linguistically speaking, it would be naive to think of equivalence as a complete identity.
 Reviewing a considerable number of arguments on translation equivalence, and its
nature, types, possibility of achievement in the TL, among others, one would find out that
scholars when introducing their views lay stress on certain aspects.
 Some scholars pay extra attention to cultural, situational or sociolinguistic (Vinay and
Darbelnet 1958/1995), dynamic (Nida 1964; Popovic 1970), formal (Catford 1965),
semiotic equivalence, while others stress communicative, textual, functional,
ideational, stylistic, and/or pragmatic equivalence.

Formal equivalent simply means that the translators for any reason will focus on the image
conjured by in their minds, thus trying their hands at reflecting the same image in the TL, i.e. the
form is given full consideration by the translators.

Ideational equivalent refers to that type of equivalent in which the translator tries to do his best
to reflect the ideas expressed by the original author, regardless of the images, i.e. the ideas are
given full consideration by the translator.

Functional equivalent means that the translators try to use their utmost effort to find an
equivalent in the TL that can reflect the function achieved by the ST expression, i.e. the
function of the ST expression is given full consideration by the translator.

Optimal (Full Equivalent)

At times, the interfacing languages conceptualize the world experience linguistically in a similar
way, giving rise to 'optimal equivalence' in which both formal and functional equivalents
coincide, as in:
 Birds of a feather flock together.
ّ
 )Dios los cría y el viento los amontona) ‫إن الطيور على أشكالها تقع‬
 Necessity is the mother of invention.
 )El hambre agudiza el ingenio( ‫الحاجة أم االختراع‬
 e.g. The end justifies the means.
 )El fin justifica los medios(.‫الغاية تبرر الوسيلة‬

Tratad de buscar más ejemplos

3
 The Rise of Translation Studies

A relatively new field of research:

Compared to other disciplines, translation studies is a relatively new field, starting to emerge in
the 2nd half of the 20th century out of other disciplines such as comparative literature and
linguistics.

One of the ways to understand translation is the well-known definition of Roman Jakobson:

1. Intralingual translation or rewording is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other

sings of the same language (paraphrase)
2. Interlingual translation or translation proper is an interpretation of verbal signs by means
of signs of some other language.
3. Intersemiotic translation or transmutation is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of
signs of nonverbal sign systems.

Another definition is that of Hatim and Munday, tending to focus on “the ambit of translation:

1. The process of transferring a written text form SL to TL, conducted by a translator, or

translators, in a specific socio-cultural context.
2. The written product, or TT, which results from that process and which functions in the
socio-cultural context of the TL.
3. The cognitive, linguistic, visual, cultural and ideological phenomena which are an
integral part of 1 and 2.

The role of a translator: skills

What do you need to become a good translator?

1. Complete knowledge of both source and target speech.

2. Write appropriately in both source and target language.
3. Ability to have language intuition ““to grasp various expressions, idioms and specific
vocabulary and their uses
4. Be aware of the cultural divergence and diverse strategies in the source and target verbal
communication
5. Be aware of diverse registers, styles of speaking, and social stratification of both source and
target language.
6. You have to be provided with encyclopedias and bilingual dictionaries in a specific context
7. You have to take control of the different kind of speeches in both source and target language.

Types of Translation
Direct vs. indirect Translation:

• Direct: Translating from a foreign language into your mother tongue. Example: a Spanish
translator who translates from English into Spanish.

4
 • Indirect: Translating from your mother tongue into a foreign one. Example: a Spanish
translator who translate from Spanish into English.

Specialized vs. Non-specialized Translation.

• Specialized: The translator requires an excellent quality and precision into an area of
knowledge. Examples: medical translation; legal translation.

• Non-specialized: A great knowledge in the area is not required to translate.

Translation techniques: The explanation of each procedure, according to Vinay and

Darbelnet

• Two levels: Morphosyntax level and Semantic level.

• Morphosyntax level techniques:
-Loan Word: A word taken from a language without translating it: Coyote (from Spanish), Pizza
(from Italian)…
-Calque: A class of loan where syntax is taken from source language and translated literally.
English: week-end Spanish: fin de semana. English: science-fiction. Spanish: ciencia-ficción.
Sangre azul → Blue-blood
-Literal Translation: translating word by word from source to target language, respecting the
collocations of the target language. English: You are rich. Spanish: Tú eres rico.

• Transposition: Translating one part of the speech to other one, without changing the sense
of the message. English: out of order. Spanish: no funciona. Le gusta nadar → She likes
swimming.
• Modulation: Variation of the message, through a change in the point of view. English:
Puzzle. Spanish: Rompecabezas. You can have it → Te lo dejo.
• Equivalence: Transmiting the same situation by using different stylistic and structural
resources. English: no right of way. Spanish: prohibido el paso. The Sound of Music →
Sonrisas y Lágrimas.
• Adaptation: “Cultural equivalence”. E.G.:French talking about Belgian jokes → English
talking about Irish jokes.

Translation as a profession
Earlier: translation was mostly done for pleasure by writers, poets, statesmen, priests, and
scholars to satisfy their individual literary, political, and scientific ambitions.
Second half of the 20th century: translating became a mass activity (source of earning a
living)
It has become a profession in its own right

Translation as a subject in training

Second half of the 20th century: many translator and interpreter training institutions established
Theoretical training became necessary (practice was not enough)  required certain
generalizations on the basis of experience gathered by translators  the formulation of
some objective rules

5
 Terminology and conceptual apparatus was needed  need for theoretical research
aimed at providing a principled basis for the teaching of translation.

Translation as an object of research

Earlier: theorizing = privilege of non-professional translators (writers, poets, statesmen,
priests, scientists, etc.)
Second half of the 20th century: translation scholars (e.g., linguists) separated from
practicing translators
Today’s scholars: also interested in the process of translation (modeling the activity +
describing regularities)  applied and basic research