The Scope of Translation Theory

Neslihan Kansu-YetkinerETI 301

Acknowledgements

This lecture is based to a large extent on:

CHESTERMAN, Andrew,. 1997. Memes of Translation. Benjamin's Translation Library, Vol 22.

MUNDAY, Jeremy. 2001. Introducing Translation Studies – Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge

Theory as a way of seeing

The etymology of the word “theory” goes back to the Greek í ‘theoria’, meaning ‘a way of looking at something’, in order to contemplate it and understand it better. In this broad sense, we can say that a theory is a helpful point of view.

DESCRIPTION, EXPLANATION 

The general goal of understanding a phenomenon means that we need access to appropriate concepts, an ability to describe and explain, and often also the ability to predict.

Appropriate concepts need to be defined, and justified in preference to other “shadow” concepts that might have been used instead but were not: i.e. the choice of concepts needs to be justified.

Definition 1

There are a great many concepts in Translation Studies (TS) which have been given competing definitions: we do not have a consistent terminology, in any language. Consider the variety of available definitions of the key concepts of “translation”, “equivalence” and “strategy”, for instance; or the different typologies of these concepts that have been proposed

Definition 2

A description can be done from many perspectives. The linguist Kenneth Pike (1959) suggested trying at least three such perspectives:

seeing the phenomenon as a particle (in isolation; and in comparison with similar particles);

as a wave (in which the phenomenon is seen as merging with other phenomena in space and time; this perspective also includes the historical, diachronic view);

and as a field (where the phenomenon is related to its surrounding context).

We could also look at it from a functional perspective: what use is it, what is its value?

Explanation 1

Explanations also come in many forms. We can explain for instance how something is possible (what are the necessary conditions?), or why it had to happen (what are the sufficient conditions?). Explanations work by showing relations of generalization, causality with other patterns of phenemona.

Explanation 2 Hypotheses about translation universals, for

instance, aim to explain the occurrence of, say, explicitation in a given translation by positing a generalization: all (or most) translations manifest some explicitation, and this makes it easier to understand why this particular translation does as well, if there is indeed a general tendency. If the generalization is true, we are not surprised when we find explicitation, because the generalization offers an explanation of a kind.

Causal explanations also increase our understanding of why something happened, or why the form of something is as it is.

For instance, why do we have different version of Shakespeare’s Sonnets in Turkish?

Why do people translate a literary text again and again?

Predictions Predictions can be used to test explanations. But

not all explanations imply the corresponding ability to predict. However, even if precise predictions are not possible, an explanation reduces our surprise that the phenomenon in question has occurred, and perhaps allows us at least to anticipate other occurrences in future. An explanation thus allows us to “make sense” of something.

Machine Translation in the future? The status of translator in Turkey in the future?

Types of Theories

Myths: Myths were symbolic narratives which offered some way of “making sense” of something mysterious. “We are meaning-seeking creatures,” writes Karen Armstrong (2005: 2); “[...] from the very beginning we invented stories that enabled us to place our lives in a larger setting, that revealed an underlying pattern [...]”. Think of the many myths of creation, in different cultures, for instance. Or the 20th-century Gaia myth which invites us to see our planet as a living organism. A myth can have enormous effects on a person or a

society.

For centuries, people believed in the relation between translation and the story of the tower of Babel in the Book of Genesis. According to the Bible, the descendants of Noah decided, after the great flood, to settle down in a plain in the land of Shinar. There, they committed a great sin. Instead of setting up a society that fits God's will, they decided to challenge His authority and build a tower that could reach Heaven. However, this plan was not completed, as God, recognizing their wish, regained control over them through a linguistic stratagem. He caused them to speak different languages so as not to understand each other. Then, he scattered them allover the earth. After that incident, the number of languages increased through diversion, and people started to look for ways to communicate, hence the birth of translation (Abdessalam Benabdelali, 2006) (1).

Metaphors and Similes

Theories can also take the form of metaphors or similes. To see something strange as something more familiar (or as being like something more familiar, or as a kind of something more familiar) is one way of making sense of it. “Metaphor is one of our most important tools for trying to comprehend partially what cannot be comprehended totally,” say Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 193).

Myths and metaphors are often said to represent the kind of knowledge which Plato called mythos, as opposed to logos. Mythos is the form of knowledge that is symbolic, intuitive, figurative, imaginative; logos is rational, explicit.

The history of Translation Studies is full of metaphors and images of translation. Here is a selection from the Renaissance period in Europe, all having to do specifically with literary translation (paraphrased from Hermans 1985b, where exact sources are given).

 

Translation is (like) imitation. The translator is like a painter who shows a person’s body but

not his soul. The translator digests the original, turning it into blood and

food. To translate is to follow in the footsteps of the original. A translation is the rival of the original, striving to beat it at its

own game. The translator is the servant or slave of the original. A translator is a magpie among peacocks (i.e. trying to look

like a peacock but failing). Translation is like a woman. If it is beautiful, it is not faithful. If

it is faithful, it is most certainly not beautiful.

A translation is the echo of a song. A translation offers false pearls in place of diamonds. A translation is like candlelight compared with the sun. Translations are shadows of beautiful bodies. Translation opens windows to let in the light. The translator brings treasures which were hidden in

the earth. A translation is a jewel in the rough casket of language. Translating is like pouring a precious liquid from one

vessel into another.

Such conceptualizations reveal implicit theories about translatability, the relation between meaning and form, translation equivalence and translation quality.

Translation has also been seen as a kind of something else which is more familiar: as a kind of rewriting, for instance (Lefevere 1992). This placing of translation under the more general term highlights its similarities with other kinds of rewriting, such as paraphrasing, summarizing, or anthologizing (and correspondingly downplays other kinds of similarities).

Model

One kind of scientific theory is a model, which seeks a relation of similarity with whatever it is a model of. Models represent what are taken to be the main elements of a phenomenon, their main functions, and the main relations between the elements.

Think of models of our planetary system, before and after Copernicus. Or models of the brain (like the model of the brain as a black box, with input and output); or models of cognitive processes (inferencing, for instance, is sometimes represented as an algorithm of yes/no choices, a view which is implicitly based on the metaphor of the mind as a computer).

-Yemek soğudu. -Ayşe, evde meyve var mı

hayatım?

A: Servis neredeyse gelir. Çabuk ol oğlum.

B: Daha yumurtam bitmedi.

Models in Translation Theory

Comparative Model comparing(i)Source texts(ii) nontranslated comparable texts

(naturalness relation)(iii) other translations (universals of

translation)

Comparative model

Examples of comparative models are those developed by e.g. Catford, Koller, Vinay and Darbelnet; those based on contrastive research; and corpus-based work on translation universals.

Catford (ST-TT comparision)

Catford’s model (1965) is based on an analysis of the various kinds of relations holding between source texts and translations, on his theory of equivalence and his classification of types of shift.

Koller (ST-TT comparision) An equivalence typology also lies

at the centre of Koller’s model (1979); he distinguishes denotative, connotative, text-type, pragmatic and formal types of equivalence.

Vinay and Darbelnet (1958) (ST-TT comparision)

Vinay and Darbelnet (1958) were primarily interested in the contrastive syntactic and rhetorical differences between English and French, and proposed a number of “procedures” as ways of conceptualizing the kinds of changes that translators make when moving from one language to another

Translated text vs. non-translated comparable texts in the TL With the advent of corpus methodology,

scholars began looking empirically at other kinds of relations. Translations into, say, English can be compared to matched (i.e. with same subject matter and text type, etc.) non-translated texts originally written in English, in order to see whether there are systematic differences between the two corpora. In other words, we can measure the naturalness of the translations.

Other translations

We can also compare translations into English with translations into other languages, from a variety of source languages, and see whether we find evidence of recurrent features (universals?) of the translations, regardless of language or text-type, which might therefore be due to the translation process itself.

Comparison of non -native text.

We might also want to compare translations to texts produced by non-native speakers: perhaps the effect of the extra constraint of the translation situation is similar to that of having to produce a text in a non-native language.

Process Model

Process models, represent the temporal sequence of stages in the translation process, either at the cognitive level of translation decisions, or the sociological level of working procedures. An early and influential process model was the one proposed by Nida (e.g. 1969). He suggested that translation was like crossing a river (note the image!), but added that a translator does not actually cross at the point where the source text is.

The translator first analyses the source text (reduces it to a simplified form, i.e. looks for an easier place to cross the river), then makes the transfer to the target language, and then “restructures” the translation, which means stylistically polishing it so that it corresponds to the stylistic profile of the original and to the expectations of the audience. He thus modelled the translation process in terms of the three stages of analysis, transfer and restructuring.

Nida

An early and influential process model was the one proposed by Nida (e.g. 1969). He suggested that translation was like crossing a river (note the image!), but added that a translator does not actually cross at the point where the source text is.

Sager Sager (1993) bases his analysis on

four working procedures: specification (understanding the client’s instructions, checking that the brief is appropriate and feasible); preparation (finding the necessary resources, terminology, and so on); translation; and evaluation (revision).

Nord

Nord (1991: 32f) argues for what she calls a looping model. Here, step one is analysis of the translation skopos; step two is analysis of the source text; and step three is the production of the target text. Nord calls this model a looping one, because it illustrates the way in which the translator continually loops back and forth between the three elements of the model: skopos, source text analysis and target text synthesis. This model is thus more complex than a linear one going directly from source to target.

Causal Models

Translations themselves are both the result of preceding causal conditions and themselves the cause of consequences. These consequences may range from acceptance or rejection of the text by the client, or feedback from critics, to major cultural developments.

Norm theory takes a different view of causation, looking more broadly at the socio-cultural conditions and norms, including for instance the translation tradition in a given culture, which affect translator’s decisions. (A classic source is Toury 1995.) In translation training, translators are typically socialized into the current norms in their society; but not all translators receive formal training, and need to pick up the norms in other ways. Norms are based on values, which in turn lead us to translation ethics: a translator’s professional ethics also affect his decisions about how to act as a translator

Test your knowledge

1) What are the types of theories?2) “A translator is a magpie among

peacocks (i.e. trying to look like a peacock but failing)”. Explain the translator’s and translation’s status in this definition.

3) What are the models of translation?

Why is translation important?

Intercultural communication

Multiculturalism

Scientific Exchange

Socio-Ideological Exportation

A few general distinctions

Translating v.  interpreting Source language/text – SL / ST Target  language/text  - TL / TT Intralingual v. interlingual v.

intersemiotic translation Contrastive linguistics Comparative literature and linguistics

Homework for the next course:

Make a summary of the article “ The name and Nature of Translation Studies by James. S. Holmes according to given chart (at the end of the article)

Read other two articles on translation history.

Thanks for your patience