Translation studies - Appunti generali

Lingua e traduzione inglese 3 esame orale con la Zanotti

HISTORY AND DEFINITION OF TRANSLATION

The word translation has a long history. In the mid-fourteenth century, the term

translation meant the removal or transfer of a saint’s body or relics from one

place to another. So, originally, the idea was not only linguistic: it was connected

with the movement of something sacred from one location to another.

The word comes from Latin. It is formed by trans, which means across, and ferre,

translatio

which means to carry or to bring. Therefore, literally means a carrying

across or a bringing across. This basic idea is still central to translation today,

because translation can be understood as the act of carrying meaning across from one

language, culture, time or semiotic system to another.

In the Middle Ages there were also related terms such as translatio imperii, meaning

the transfer of imperial power, and translatio studii, meaning the transfer of

knowledge. This shows that translation has always been connected not only with

language, but also with culture, power and knowledge.

Romance languages, which derive directly from Latin, adapted the second Latin word

translatio. Germanic languages, instead, calqued the concept of translation on

translatio, creating their own words for the idea of carrying meaning across.

A basic way of defining translation is that translation is the replacement of an

original text, called the source text, with another text, called the target text.

Another definition is that translation is the transfer of meaning from Text 1 to Text 2.

However, translation is not fixed once and for all, because it includes all utterances

that are presented or regarded as translations within a target culture.

Translation can also be defined as a mediated communicative event. This means

that translation reformulates aspects of our lives and shapes our understanding of the

world. In this sense, translation is not just a mechanical operation between words, but

a complex act of communication.

According to Roman Jakobson, there are three types of translation.

The first is interlingual translation, which is translation from one verbal language

to another. This is what we normally call translation in the strict sense: for example,

translating from English into Italian. From the source language to the target

language.

The second is intralingual translation, also called rewording. This is translation

within the same verbal language, but in a different variety or form. For example,

when we explain a difficult English word using simpler English words, we are

translating intralingually.

The third is intersemiotic translation, which is translation between two different

semiotic systems, for example from verbal signs to non-verbal signs. A typical

example is the transformation of a novel into a film, where language is translated into

images, sounds and visual representation.

At its early stages, translation was crucial for cultural and religious dissemination.

It was seen as a tool for language learning, especially applied to ancient languages

such as Greek and Latin, and later to modern languages. For a long time, translation

was strongly linked to the grammar-translation method, a method used to learn

foreign languages through direct translation and grammatical analysis. Later, in the

1960s and 1970s, this method was partly replaced by the direct method and the

communicative approach, which focused more on natural language learning and

authentic communication in the classroom.

In the early history of translation, one of the main debates was between word-for-

word translation and sense-for-sense translation .

Word-for-word translation means translating each word of the source text with its

closest grammatical equivalent in the target language. This approach stays very close

to the surface structure of the source text, especially its syntax and semantics.

Sense-for-sense translation, instead, means translating the meaning of the source

text according to its context and according to the requirements of the target language.

In this approach, the translator does not follow every single word, but tries to

reproduce the overall sense and content of the original.

This debate was discussed by important classical authors such as Cicero, Horace and

St Jerome.

rejected strict word-for-word

Cicero translation. He argued that he did not translate as

an interpreter, but as an orator. This means that the translator should produce a

speech or text that moves the listener or reader. Cicero wanted to preserve the same

ideas, forms and style of the source text, but without being mechanically bound to

every single word.

rejected word-for-word

Horace also translation. He believed that a translator should

not be a faithful slave of individual words, because excessive literalness can damage

the effect and meaning of the text.

St Jerome is also fundamental in the history of translation. He translated the Bible

into Latin, producing the Vulgate. Like Cicero, he supported the idea of translating

sense for sense, not word for word, especially when translating ordinary texts.

However, in the case of sacred texts, the question was more delicate, because every

word could be considered important. His position became extremely influential in the

history of Bible translation and in later discussions about fidelity.

Later, there were early attempts to create a more systematic theory of translation.

John Dryden reduced translation to three categories.

-The first is metaphrase, which means word-by-word and line-by-line translation. This

corresponds to literal translation.

-The second is paraphrase, where the translator follows the sense of the original, but

not the exact words. This is sense-for-sense translation.

-The third is imitation, where the translator does not follow either the words or the

sense strictly. This is a freer kind of translation.

Dryden preferred paraphrase , because he believed that imitation and metaphrase

should generally be avoided: metaphrase is too literal, while imitation is too free.

Another important theorist is Étienne Dolet, who set out five principles for

translation.

the translator must

-First, perfectly understand the sense and material of the original

author, although he should feel free to clarify obscurities.

the translator should

-Second, have a perfect knowledge of both the source language

and the target language.

the translator should

-Third, avoid word-for-word renderings.

the translator should

-Fourth, avoid Latinate and unusual forms.

the translator should

-Fifth, assemble and liaise words eloquently, avoiding clumsiness.

Then we have Alexander Tytler, who defined three general laws of translation.

-First, the translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original text.

faithfulness to the content.

This is

-Second, the style and manner of writing should have the same character as the

faithfulness to the form.

original. This is should have all the ease

-Third, the translation of the original. This means that the

translated text should sound natural and fluent.

Another important figure is Yan Fu, who stated three principles.

-The first is xin, meaning fidelity or faithfulness.

-The second is da, meaning comprehensibility or fluency.

-The third is ya, meaning elegance or gracefulness.

So, for Yan Fu, a good translation should be faithful, understandable and elegant.

A very important later figure is Schleiermacher, who is linked to the valorization of

the foreign. His preferred translation strategy is to move the reader towards the

writer, so that the reader receives, through the translation, the same impression he

would have received as a German reading the work in the original language.

To achieve this, the translator must adopt an alienating method, which emphasizes

the value of the foreign by bending target-language usage to the source text. This

ensures faithfulness to the source text, but it may produce consequences that are

sometimes awkward or unusual in the target language.

According to Schleiermacher, when the translator tries to communicate the impression

received from the source text, this impression will also depend on the person who

translates. There is also a need to compensate for things that are impossible to

translate directly.

So, in the history of translation, we move from the old debate between word-for-word

and sense-for-sense translation to a more complex view, where translation is

connected to meaning, style, culture, reader effect, foreignness and communicative

purpose.

THE FORMATION OF TRANSLATION STUDIES

The next major stage is the birth of Translation Studies as an independent academic

discipline.

Before the twentieth century, translation was mainly discussed through practical

advice and prescriptive rules. Scholars were mostly concerned with answering the

question:

"How should a translation be done?"

In the 1970s, however, translation began to emerge as a separate field of study.

The key figure here is James S. Holmes.

Holmes argued that Translation Studies should become an autonomous discipline with

its own object of study, methods and research areas.

His most important contribution is known as the map of Translation Studies.

According to Holmes, Translation Studies can be divided into two main branches:

1. Pure Translation Studies

2. Applied Translation Studies

PURE TRANSLATION STUDIES

Pure Translation Studies aims to describe and explain translation phenomena.

It is divided into:

Theoretical Translation Studies

This branch aims to formulate general principles and theories about translation.

The objective is to explain how translation works in general.

Descriptive Translation Studies

This branch describes translations as they actually exist.

Instead of prescribing rules, it studies real translations.

Holmes identifies three areas of descriptive research.

Product-oriented DTS

This studies existing translations.

Researchers compare source texts and target texts and analyse the final translated

product.

Process-oriented DTS

This studies what happens in the translator's mind during translation.

Researchers try to understand the cognitive processes involved in translating.

Function-oriented DTS

This studies the function of translations in the target culture.

The focus is on the role that translations play in society.

APPLIED TRANSLATION STUDIES

Applied Translation Studies focuses on practical applications.

According to Holmes, it includes:

Translator Training

The education and preparation of translators.

Translation Aids

Tools that help translators.

For example:

dictionaries

 glossaries

 terminology databases



Translation Criticism

The evaluation and assessment of translations.

VAN DOORSLAER'S MAP

Later, Luc Van Doorslaer expanded Holmes' original map.

He argued that Translation Studies had become much more complex and

interdisciplinary.

His model includes:

theories

 concepts

 methods

 approaches

 schools of thought



Van Doorslaer's contribution reflects the enormous growth of the discipline and the

increasing number of perspectives used to study translation.

TRANSLATION AS COMMUNICATION ACROSS CULTURES

As Translation Studies developed, scholars began to move away from a purely

linguistic view of translation.

Translation came to be seen as an act of communication between cultures.

Translation is not simply a transfer of words.

It is also a transfer of:

ideas

 values

 beliefs

 conventions



from one culture to another.

This shift gradually led to what became known as the cultural turn.

The cultural turn emphasizes that language is always embedded in culture.

Therefore, translation cannot be understood without considering cultural factors.

A translator must not only understand the source language but also the social and

cultural environment in which the text was produced.

EQUIVALENCE

One of the most important concepts in Translation Studies is equivalence.

The central question is:

How can a target text be considered equivalent to a source text?

Different scholars proposed different answers.

JAKOBSON AND EQUIVALENCE

Roman Jakobson was one of the first scholars to discuss equivalence systematically.

Jakobson focuses on language, meaning and communication.

He argues that there is no complete equivalence between linguistic units belonging to

different languages.

This happens because languages organise reality differently.

Each language has its own structures and terminology.

However, Jakobson does not believe that translation is impossible.

Even if exact equivalence does not exist, messages can still be translated because

languages are capable of expressing the same ideas through different linguistic

means.

For Jakobson, the main problem of translation is not the impossibility of meaning, but

the differences that exist between language systems.

MEANING ACCORDING TO JAKOBSON

Jakobson argues that words do not possess meaning in isolation.

A word acquires meaning through its context.

Meaning is therefore relational and contextual.

He identifies different aspects of meaning.

Linguistic Meaning

Meaning generated by the linguistic system itself.

Referential Meaning

Meaning connected with objects, events and reality.

Connotative Meaning

Meaning associated with emotions, cultural associations and subjective

interpretations.

This distinction is important because translators often have to transfer not only

referential meaning but also connotative meaning.

NIDA'S THEORY OF EQUIVALENCE

A major development comes from Eugene Nida.

Nida developed his theory mainly in relation to Bible translation.

His objective was to make translations understandable and effective for target

readers.

Nida distinguishes between two main types of equivalence.

FORMAL EQUIVALENCE

Formal equivalence focuses on the form and content of the source text.

The translator tries to preserve:

grammatical structures

 lexical choices

 textual organisation

