Mildred L.

Larson
Translation is a process based on the theory that it is possible to abstract the
meaning of a text from its forms and reproduce that meaning with the very
diferent forms of a second language. A translation is made by transferring
meaning of the source language into the receptor language which done by
going from the form of the frst language to the form of the second language
by way of semantic structure. Studying the lexicon, grammatical structure,
communication situation, and cultural context of the source language text,
analyzing it in order to determine its meaning, and then reconstructing this
same meaning using the lexicon and grammatical structure which are
appropriate in the receptor language and its cultural context. !arson, "##$ %&'
Translate idiomatically is the goal of good translator by means of
ma(ing many ad)ustments in the forms. *n other words, the translator+s goal
should be to reproduce a text in the target language which communicates
the same message as the source language but using the natural
grammatical and lexical choices of the target language. ,owever,
translations are often a mixture of a literal transfer of the grammatical units
along with some idiomatic translation of the meaning of the text. *t is not
easy to consistently translate idiomatically. *diomatic translations use the
natural form of the receptor language, both in the grammatical constructions
and in the choice of lexical items. A truly idiomatic translation does not
sound li(e a translation. *t sounds li(e it was written originally in the receptor
language.
Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber
Translating is reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural
e-uivalent of the source.language message, frst in terms of meaning and
secondly in terms of style. /efnition of translation represents the
perspective and attitude to translation theory, which is the basis and starting
point of relative translation studies, so deep understanding to defnition will
deepen the recognition to the theory.
The contribution of 0ugene 1ida in the feld of translation studies
cannot be overstressed, with his two famous boo(s in the "#23s% Toward a
Science of Translating "#24' and the co.authored The Theory and Practice
of Translation 1ida and Taber, "#2#', attempting to give a more 5scientifc6
sense to translation. 7orrowing theoretical concepts from semantics and
pragmatics, and being in8uenced by 9homs(y+s generative.transformational
grammar "#2:', 1ida adopts a more systematic approach to exploring the
feld of translation studies.
;ith regard to e-uivalence, 1ida maintains that there are two basic
types of e-uivalence% "' formal equivalence and <' dynamic equivalence. *n
particular, 1ida argues that in formal e-uivalence the TT resembles very
much the ST in both form and content whereas in dynamic e-uivalence an
efort is made to convey the ST message in the TT as naturally as possible. *t
could be argued that 1ida is in favour of dynamic e-uivalence since he
considers it to be a more efective translation procedure. This comes as no
surprise given the fact that 1ida was, at the time at which he profered his
views about e-uivalence, translating the 7ible, and hence trying to produce
the same impact on various diferent audiences he was simultaneously
addressing.
Although there are many criticism about her theory, nida moved a long
way forward from the position of his predecessors because he was able to
produce systematic and analytical procedure for translators wor(ing with all
(inds of texts and, more importantly, brought into the translation game, the
readers= that is, the receptors, as well as their cultural expectation
John C. Catford
The idea of types and shifts of translation was contributed by 9atford.
;hile Shifts refer to the changes that ta(e place during the translation
process. >ore specifcally, 9atford describes very broad types of translation
according to three criteria. ?irstly, full translation is contrasted with partial
translation which difers according to the extent of translation. Secondly,
total translation difers from restricted translation according to the levels of
language involved in translation, and, thirdly, 9atford distinguishes between
rank-bound translation and unbounded translation, depending on the
grammatical or phonological ran( at which e-uivalence is established.
@elated to translation shifts, 9atford defnes them as departures from
formal correspondence when translating from the S! to the T!. >oreover,
>oreover, he maintains that there are two main types of translation shifts,
that is, level shifts where an S! item at one linguistic level, for example
grammar, has a T! e-uivalent at a diferent level, for instance lexis' and
category shifts, which are divided into a' structure.shifts involving change in
grammatical structure, b' unit.shifts involving changes in ran(, c' class.
shifts involving changes in class, and d' intra.system shifts which occur
internally when source and target language systems share the same
constitution but a non.corresponding term in the T! is selected when
translating.
9atford was severely criticized for holding a largely linguistic theory of
translation. Snell.,ornby "#$$' puts forward the claim that linguistics should
not be considered as the only discipline which enables translation to ta(e
place, but that cultural, situational and historical factors should also be ta(en
into consideration 9atford, "#2:% "#.<3'. >oreover, she goes on to claim
that 9atford+s defnition of textual e-uivalence is 5circular6, his reliance on
bilingual informants 5hopelessly inade-uate6 and his example sentences
5isolated and even absurdly simplistic6 cited in !eonardi, <33A% $A'.
,owever, >alm()aer <33:' insightfully observes that one should bear in
mind that when 9atford "#2:' defnes translation as the replacement of S!
textual material by T! e-uivalent textual material, he does not mean
e-uivalent in meaning cited in >alm()aer, <33:% <4'.
Werner Koller
Bne of the most prominent Cerman scholars wor(ing in the feld of
translation studies is ;erner Doller. Doller+s "#A#' Einfhrung in die
bersetungswissenschaft !ntroduction into the Science of Translation' is a
detailed examination of the concept of e-uivalence and its lin(ed term
correspondence. *n particular, correspondence involves the comparison of
two language systems where diferences and similarities are described
contrastively, whereas equivalence deals with e-uivalent items in specifc ST.
T! pairs and contexts.
Doller "#A#' distinguishes fve diferent types of e-uivalence% a'
denotative equivalence involving the extralinguistic content of a text, b'
connotative equivalence relating to lexical choices, c' te"t-normative
equivalence relating to text.types, d' pragmatic equivalence involving the
receiver of the text or message, and, fnally, e' formal equivalence relating
to the form and aesthetics of the text Doller, "#A#% "$2."#"'. These
categories suggest that the translator selects the type of e-uivalence most
appropriate to the dominant function of the source text. Doller also made
explicit the dual nature of the concept as a normative, theoretical one, and
as a descriptive, empirical one. *n his theoretical explication of the concept,
e-uivalence implied a set of conditions to be met.
,aving identifed diferent types of e-uivalence, Doller "#A#' goes on
to argue that a hierarchy of values can be preserved in translation only if the
translator comes up with a hierarchy of e-uivalence re-uirements for the
target text Doller, "#A#% $#'. Although the hierarchical ordering of
e-uivalences is open to debate, Doller+s contribution to the feld of
translation studies is ac(nowledged for bringing into translatorsE attention
various types and ways in which the then fashionable desideratum of
e-uivalence may be achieved.
Ernst-August utt
Cutt loo(s at theories of natural e-uivalence of the (ind we have seen
from Finay and /arbelnet, or Doller' and says that, in principle, there is no
limit to the (inds of e-uivalence that they can establish. 0very text, in fact
every translation decision, would have to have its own theory of e-uivalence.
So all these theories are seriously 8awed a theory should have fewer terms
than the ob)ect it accounts for'.
;hat ma(es Cutt+s approach especially interesting here is the way he
explains directional e-uivalence as 5interpretative resemblance6. ,e regards
language as being a very wea( representation of meaning, no more than a
set of 5communicative clues6 that receivers have to interpret. ;hen he sets
out to explain how such interpretation is carried out, Cutt draws on the
concept of inference, formulated by the philosopher ,. Gaul Crice "#A:'. The
basic idea here is that we do not communicate by language alone, but by the
relation between language and context.
Cutt+s application of relevance theory might be considered
idiosyncratic on this point. This could be because he has a particular concern
with 7ible translation. *n insisting that interpretation should be in terms of
the source context, Cutt efectively discounts much of the 5dynamic
e-uivalence6 that 0ugene 1ida wanted to use to ma(e biblical texts relevant
to new audiences. Cutt insists not only that the original context is the one
that counts, but also that this 5ma(es the explication of implicatures both
unnecessary and undesirable 5Cutt, "##"% "22'. *n the end, 5it is the
audience+s responsibility to ma(e up for such diferences6.
At this point, the e-uivalence paradigm has become -uite diferent
from the comparing of languages. The application of relevance theory shows
e-uivalence to be something that operates more on the level of beliefs, of
fctions, or of possible thought processes. *t is thus something that can have
conse-uences for the way translators ma(e decisions.
La!rence "enuti
*n "##:, !awrence Fenuti in his wor( The TranslatorHs *nvisibility named
the frst method Iforeignizing methodI and the second Idomesticating
methodI. According to Fenuti, a domesticating method is an ethnocentric
reduction of the foreign text to language cultural values, bringing the author
bac( home, and a foreignizing method is an ethno deviant pressure on those
values to register the linguistic and cultural diference of the foreign text,
sending the reader abroad. ?rom then on, the debate on domestication and
foreignization extends from the layer of language involved in the debate on
literal translation and free translation to another one of cultural and political
connotation.
Fenuti <334' believes that a foreignizing translation is highly
desirable, as it see(s to resist the dominant target.language cultural values
and signify the linguistic and cultural diference of the foreign text instead of
eliminating them, which is also the basic idea of the deconstruction
translation theory which will be referred to later. *t is a strategic cultural
intervention pitched against the hegemonic 0nglish.language nations and
the une-ual cultural exchanges in which they engage their global others.
?rom FenutiHs point of view, Iforeignizing translation in 0nglish can be a form
of resistance against ethnocentrism and racism, cultural narcissism and
imperialism, in the interests of democratic geopolitical relationsI Fenuti,
<334% <3'. Fenuti <334' advocates and practices a resistant translation
strategy, a term synonymous to foreignization, because it locates the alien in
a cultural other, pursues cultural diversity, foregrounds Hthe linguistic and
cultural diferences of the source.language text and transforms the hierarchy
of cultural values in the target language Fenuti, <334% &3$'.
,owever, he opposes the domesticating translation in the Anglo.
American cultures. Bne reason is that this strategy results in transparent and
8uent translations, which in turn lead to the invisibility of translators.
Transparency Iefaces the wor( of translation and contributes to the cultural
marginality and economic exploitation that 0nglish.language translators
have long sufered, their status as seldom recognized, poorly paid writers
whose wor( nonetheless remains indispensable because of the global
domination of Anglo.American cultureI Fenuti, <334% "A'.