Unit 1: Theory/Theories

Keywords: theory, structure, literal, domestication, fidelity, translation history, adaptation.

Texts: Two anthologies will help you find your way into historical perspectives of translation:
Venuti, Lawrence, Ed. The Translation Studies Reader (Routledge, 2004) is a good overview of essays
on the art of translation structured into periods with good substantial introductions to each period. If
youd like to gain a substantial insight into a range of translation practice, you are adviced to look at the
essays by St Jerome, DAblancourt, Scheleiermacher, Borges, Nabokov, Nida and Venuti himself. These
are all relevant for the issues discussed in Unit 1. Other interesting contributions by Toury, Steiner,
Berman, Spivak and Nornes will be mentioned in further units.

Weissbort, Daniel and Astradur Eysteinsson, Eds.,Translation. Theory and Practice: A Historical
Reader (Oxford University Press, 2006) is another excellent anthology. It includes more texts
and it is even more wide-ranging. The contributions, well organized in sections, are often briefer
and easier to read and are preceded by contextual introductions.

What is a theory?
In the simplest terms, a theory is a formulation on how something
works: it explains phenomena. Scientific phenomena. Social
phenomena. Cultural phenomena.
This formulation can be based on informed speculation, needs to be
made in relation to other proposals, specifically to contrasted
knowledge or to philosophical explanations. A theory is not just a
hunch based on intuition, but requires engaging with contrasted (i.e.
solid, tested) knowledge about the world. It also requires precise, structured explanation, sometimes
even specialized terminology. Often a theory is subject to a scientific test, but many theories can only
be contrasted with philosophical ideas.
This is something you should keep in mind for the purposes of this module:
hunches and intuition are great. Theory and explanations are something else.
Skills for intuition can be cultivated and they are in other modules. In this module
you will be asked to cultivate your ability to give written accounts of a more
theoretical kind.
Whereas a doctrine sets out an agenda (its form is b is r and so we should do x in order to achieve what
we intend), theories are far more complicated. Their form is if what X says about topic M is right, then
I propose that B, a phenomenon related to M, has qualities a, b, c, and can be explained by r.

Forum Exercise 1
Replace the variables in the previous sentence with specific notions to give an
instance of theoretical formulation. Please notice this is a rhetoric exercise:
your theory does not have to be true and indeed it can be absurd!

In any case a theory will be based on ideas, on abstraction and generalization

about the world.
A theory is always about understanding and very specifically about describing systematically a
phenomenon. Examples of phenomena are: the human mind, economics, power, radiation, gravity.

Example 1
Freudian psychoanalysis is a theory on how the human mind works: as a theory
it posits that our acts and conscious ideas are governed by lower sub-conscious
structures, and that there are certain relationships between subconscious
desires/drives and actual behavior or neuroses. Freud described the human
mind very precisely as a mechanism. What Freud proposed is only partially
subject to scientific proof: we can infer from what we see how the mind works,
but we cannot see, quantify or show the structures Freud described.
A theory can have practical repercussions and often aims to intervene in order to solve real issues in
the real world. Contrasted scientific theories help us predict the effects of something we do to human
bodies or to nature. Theories help see the world as a machine. However, its important to remember
that not all of them can be contrasted in the same way: global warming is most likely true but
it remains a theory in competition with other opposing ones which would claim different
effects from the accumulation of CO2. Psychological theories are closer to this. By understanding the
human mind, Freudian psychoanalysis claims, we can cure mind-related illnesses and straighten out
(or cure) damaged personalities.
In saying a theory is a proposal the implication is that it is not truth. But, crucially, this does not
mean theories are simple speculations or can easily be dismissed.
A translation theory is a proposal that accounts for the difficulties of intercultural
exchanges, particularly as they concern the way texts are adapted for the needs of
a target language.

Example 2
Not every psychologist will agree with Freuds basic structures, but many
consider it to be a good way to describe mental processes and a process of
curing patients with mental diseases is based on application of Freudian
theory.

But a theory can co-exist with others.

Example 3
Even Freud changed his formulation of the human mind. And not only that:
this formulation co-existed with others. Other authors after Freud re-shaped
the structures he proposed (for instance French psychoanalyst Jacques
Lacan).

People with neurosis are not always cured by psychoanalysis. That does not mean the theory itself is
useless. Remember, theory is first and foremost about understanding and only secondarily about doing.
Otherwise it would be a creed or a doctrine. It can always be modified. It can be made more complex.
More variables can be introduced. In some cases experiments may lead to re-formulations.
Forum Exercise 2
Think about a theory on a subject. Discuss what it is based on, what
its roots are. Are those roots scientific or philosophical? Is it widely
accepted or just one proposal on the subject?

Structures, ideas, abstraction

One common stumbling block for practitioners of translation dealing with
theory is the fact that theories are based on abstract ideas and describe
structures which are essentially abstract. Translation is regarded largely
as a practice and it is experienced as such by translators. They are more
concerned with actual processes (doing) than with the ideas underlying
those processes (understanding).

Most of your work in the course will focus on those processes and
practical issues. In this module, however, you should be prepared to
embrace abstraction rather than avoid it.
Dealing with abstract ideas is important. First because it saves you dealing with each problem
individually: abstraction makes problems more general. Therefore abstract ideas can make your work
more fluid, consistent and better informed. Secondly because it can guide you into the specific solutions
you are aiming for.
Some people have an implicit intuitive knowledge of such abstract ideas. In other words, they dont
need to use explicit formulations in order to make use of them. Still, making the implicit explicit can
help them in cases where intuition fails. And then again in some cases a wrong approach can too easily
be confused with a right intuition or mere imitation. Intuition (or hunches) can be legitimate and they
certainly have their right place in translation practice, but in this module students are asked to think
alternatively in terms of abstract ideas put into words.
This module is very much about making the implicit explicit, discussing how and why
certain solutions might be best rather than proposing final solutions. You are asked
to be able to explain your decisions rather than reaching the right decision.

Example 4
Just imagine an alien, newly landed and eager to know our culture, who
naturally enough decides to attend a football match. It could learn about
football by watching numerous matches. Eventually, the rules might
become clear, although this would take time. But if a shared language is
worked out, it could begin by getting some ideas on structures of the
football match and general rules. The process of engagement with the
game will be faster, the learning curve steeper. Provided it has the right
number of legs, our alien would be well on its way to become the next
Messi!
Structures are often understood to be formal, that is, they refer only to why things appear as they are.
But there is another set of structures that have to do with conventions and ideas. In this module we
shall focus on the latter.
A theory of translation deals with conventions and ideas on language, which then tries to
adapt to practical purposes of how to transfer meaning or whole texts into a different
language. Theories of translation are complex. This module is intended as an introduction
to theoretical views on language, translation and audiovisual narratives that can open new
avenues of understanding and prepare the way for potential postgraduate work.

Example 5
A sonnet is a verse form with very tight formal structure. In Spanish it consists of fourteen lines, two
quartets (a quartet is a consistent set of four lines) and two tercets (three lines). In English it consists
of three quartets and two couplets. But in most cultures a sonnet also entailed the use of a certain
approach to love, even a certain rhetorical content. Ideas can also be structural.
A program is a structure that sets out specific, clear sections and objectives for a particular event. Every
time the event is repeated, these sections and objectives will have to appear. Too often a program is
equated to a theory. Although a theory can produce a program, remember that the concept of theory is
wider, more general, more abstract.
A theory emphasizes ideas, rather than creeds or schools of practice.
A theory will not always tell you how to do things (for instance how to translate); a theory is not a set
of instructions. Translators need to bridge the gap between ideas and practice.
In this module a view of how language works will be proposed, but it
is up to students to match that proposal to their own practical needs.
In section 2 of this unit well see different examples of how ideas have historically influenced the
practice of translators.
Forum Exercise 3
Can you describe formal structures underlying your favourite song? How are TV news programmes
structured? Can you distinguish between programmatic structures in a news programme?
Ideologies and theories
As pointed out, there rarely is only one theory on any phenomena. There is not one
theory on the human mind. There is not one unified theory of the way societies work.
There is no single theory on economics or on how to beat recession. And in each of
these areas, multiple theories will be in conflict.

Translation is no exception
Choosing one over theory another will often be arbitrary (i.e. choice can
be unmotivated). Sometimes it will be subjective (choice has a motive on
personal reasons). In some cases it will be ideological (some people
decide that theories predicting chaos from global warning are wrong
because they are for free enterprise, or because they are conservative and
dont want ecologists to be running society or some such reason).
Arbitrary, subjective or ideological are different concepts and have
to be studied differently.

Forum Exercise 4
Give briefly an example of an arbitrary decision, a subjective one and finally an ideological one.
One needs to be careful as often such ideologies try to pass themselves off as truths. Some
philosophers have argued that, indeed, the success of an ideological doctrine consists precisely in
convincing people that it is right, good and truthful.
Also, we have seen how theories are not objective truths. In fact theories are influenced by ideologies
(sets of ideas, ready-made and well articulated), and consequently the choice of one theory over another
has to do with the preference for one or another set of ideas. In other words, the reason for adopting a
theory on the human mind, on global warming or on language and translation is open to question. Even,
we might add, if a particular theory is accepted by a majority of people (see 2.1 for the standard theory
on how translation works).
In section two we shall see how ideas on cultural exchange influenced the practice of translation, to the
point that certain ideologies of translation were imposed over others. Economic ideas also help define
translation and the status of the translator.
Other ideas are less obvious in political terms. We all have an implicit idea of how language works. Or
how the mind works. Once again, in this module the implicit will be made explicit, so that it can be
contrasted with other ideas.
Why Translation Theory?
Translation is a complex process. In principle, it is simply about
putting utterances from one language into another. In the particular
case of audiovisual translators utterances are audiovisual texts
(For the purposes of the module, the focus will be on narrative texts,
although references will be made to journalistic texts, documentaries
or essays). This formulation seems to be enough for many students,
and even for professionals of translation.
This leads to a view of translation as mechanical transference of contents which can be as clear and as
simple only if the following conditions are met:
a) It presupposes words have stable meanings.
b) It presupposes that all meanings exist in all languages (provided we consider individual languages
as different ways to fragment reality) in practical terms in one-to-one correspondences.
If this is true, it is only a question of finding the right equivalent to every utterance, which one can do
through research and by having access to such resources as dictionaries and encyclopaedias. The
process may not always be smooth, but occasional wrinkles can be addressed as problems.
If we accept this formulation as the truth, translators do not need a theory.
But as we discussed earlier the truth is hardly ever covered by one theory in the humanities: language
is far from simple and even this view presupposes too many things to be considered as a

straightforward truth. The central problem is that even views of translation that reject the need of a
theory (and assume a merely practical side to translation) will entail theoretical proposals. They are
always based on ideas on language.
One of the objectives of this module is to investigate the ideas on language which underlie views on
translation.
Here are some questions that can only be accounted for if we adopt a theoretical view of translation
and language beyond the standard one:
-To what extent are translators creative writers?
For some writers, translators should repress any creative impulses and aim to disappear behind the
texts original author. For others this is simply impossible: language being what it is, translators are
either creative or limited.
-What values of the original text are to be preserved?
For some writers, translators should concentrate on the explicit meaning of the text. Everything else is
subordinated to that meaning. Others think that the text works on more levels than just objective
meaning: form, implication, symbolism, cultural context.
-Which levels of meaning should translation address?
Is the rustle of language to be taking into account in translation? Does rhythm produce meaning in
any significant way? Does the text mean the same for everybody? Should translators take this into
account?
-Is transparent translation achievable?
Some proponents advocate transparent translation, to the extent that machine translation is a
growing area on translation studies. For others, machine translation is a tempting but preposterous
idea.
-Are politics relevant to translation?
Does one translate in the world or from a vantage point of utter objectivity? Do translators intervene
in issues of race, gender, ethics or oppression?
-Where does a translation end and a version or an adaptation begin?
Some will argue that translation is translation and a version is a different thing. One deals with an
objective text and produces a final version which is also objective. For others, translation is a far more
porous concept and one cannot completely dismiss the processes that are often associated to adapting
texts into different media.
-How is translation similar to other forms of cultural transference?

Does translation end with the finished product? To what extent it is a wider phenomenon similar to
other ways of intercultural exchange?
In Unit 2 we shall propose that far from being a simple process, translation is a very problematic one
(which can be conventionally standardized). In Unit 3 we shall discuss how ideas on language are wide
ranging and affect how the translation process can be approached.
What are the advantages of a theoretical view?
Awareness of how language and translation work is important to identify the issues and to be able to
explain what translators do.
A second advantage is consistency: in resolving issues from a coherent perspective, we avoid solutions
that may seem right but are just motivated by chance. A theoretical approach will force translators be
more systematic in the solutions.
Thirdly, knowledge of theoretical issues can provide translators with new approaches and ideas to
deal with problematic texts.

Theories in History (examples from different approaches to translation)

Translators without historical conscience easily become victims of their own assumptions and
those privileged by the cultural discourses of their time Antoine Berman (1995:61) Pour une
critique des traductions: John Donne. Paris: Gallimard.
Introduction. Why history is relevant for translators
Many of the insights in the first section of the course will be contextualized in
historical terms. By looking at the way translators approached problems and
issues of language transference in the past, we can, at least, acknowledge that
there is more than one solution, that there are no recipes that will always work,
that translators need to exercise their own knowledge.
The following section builds up on the idea proposed in the previous one. By showing how different
theories of translation have been prominent in history, the notion of a single theory becomes more
relative. Throughout history, change in ideas has produced changing approaches to translation which
were favoured by different political and cultural situations. At the very least, one might conclude each
period will require a different model of translation. Of course the question of which model is ours is still
very much open.
Historically translation scholars have privileged one of these perspectives in looking at translation. The
three perspectives complement each other:
a) To specify the function and objectives of translation
In other words: is translation supposed to reproduce the original, to adapt it, replace it, comment on it,
and serve the same function.?

b) Description and analysis of the translation process

In other words, how to translate, what do we do if we find something which, in principle, is
untranslatable, etc.
c) Critical commentary of the relationship between objectives and processes
Translation analysis: these translators made these decisions with this purpose and the relation
between the decisions and their intention is problematic for this and this reason
Literal and dynamic approaches to translation
In terms of the results of the translation process, one finds two basic approaches
(as described by Eugene Nida in reference to Bible translation):
a) First a number of authors through history have believed in literal
translation. Nida calls this approach formal or word for word. The translator
believes a text is basically the sum of its elements, and therefore one should keep
as close to the original elements as possible, even if the result is not natural in
the target language. When St Paul translated sections of the Bible, being faithful
to the words was important, as every word was sacred.
b) The second approach is known as dynamic (also known as sense for sense), which favours
function of the original text or the intention of the original author, both conveyed in a natural way into
the target language. Example: Cicero believed that what was important was to convey the rhetorical
impulse of the original. Numerous authors in the history of translation have opted for dynamic
approaches. St Jeromes translation of the Bible is a great example of this. Functionalism is one
manifestation of dynamic approaches which emphasizes the idea of performativity in language (as we
shall study in unit 2).
As well see in the next unit, the dynamic approach can be understood as literal in that it is larger units
with clear, objective, meanings that are translated rather than simple words, in order to make syntax of
the translated text smoother (domestication, see below). However, one can push this alternative into
something different, more radical and less literal.
What if instead of units of sense one starts thinking about functions? And what if instead of
concentrating on the linguistic chain one looks at language as a multi-level structure? In his later work,
Eugene Nida asked himself these questions and started to stress what he called the functional
approach. In units 2 and 3 youll be encouraged to think in terms of the function of texts and units as
determining translation choices.
Domestication and foreignization in translation history
Of course even if we accept either sense for sense translation as the legitimate
approach there are still choices for the translator regarding whether the resulting
text must hide its origins and read as a standard text in the target language or it has
to own up to being translated, resulting in a certain strangeness. Lawrence Venuti,
in his challenging and groundbreaking 1995 essay The Translators
Invisibility, mapped the history of translation as a territory between two poles in
terms of how translated texts conform to the target language.

The main insight on which he built his theory comes from a text by XIX century German linguist
Friederich Schleiermacher on the importance to translation (On the different methods of translating,
1813). Schleiermacher is very sensitive to the political aspects of translation: when one is transferring
a set of ideas from one language into another, there are effects in the target language. This is why, Venuti
would add, some dictatorial governments are so wary of translation and so intent in controlling what
and how gets translated. This is also, for instance, why the Franco years were so obsessed with
controlling dubbing of films. Ideas that move between cultures can challenge received ideas in the target
culture. But Schleiermacher adds, besides ideas, linguistic form is important. In preserving some
stylistic aspects of the source language, we are introducing variety and enriching the target language.
We could re-phrase Scheleiermachers ideas here by saying that bastardization invigorates language.
Venuti calls domesticating translation to the important historical trend to adapt or domesticate
the foreign text into the target language so that it is perceived as if written in that language originally.
This contributes to make the translator invisible. The text attempts to pass as an original, even if this
implies ironing out anything in style or ideas that might be problematic for target readers. In extreme
cases names are changed and even some of the habits are brought closer to the experience of the reader.
For Venuti, this trend has negative implications for language, for style and for the status of translators.
Among other things it fixes linguistic structures and prevents innovation. In his work, Venuti defends
the opposite trend, which he derives from the Schleiermacher text, which he calls foreignizing and
entails allowing the less orthodox aspects of the source language to remain in the translated text.
Whether one agrees or not with Venuti, whether one considers his approach practical or not (and
certainly many translators dont agree with him) it helps us to look at translation as a creative,
imaginative process, rather than as a mechanical one.
Translating the classics: approaches
One of the best ways to illustrate how ideas on translation determine different approaches is to learn
from historical attitudes towards translation.
Translating the classics entails taking into account two elements which are not present in translating
texts produced by contemporary writers.
1. There is a time gap, and therefore a shift in the way the original was perceived, with many elements
which will have changed or even lost their relevance or meaning. The translator is addressing a
contemporary audience.
2. The text itself has been the object of interpretations through time and it has come to mean something
more than what it did originally. Translators have to deal with the way the text has been read.
Translating the Bible
It is not irrelevant that a substantial amount of study in historical translation studies
has been devoted to Bible translation. This is because the Bible has been, for centuries,
the basic book in Western culture (Bible comes from the Greek meaning The
Books). The Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic, languages very
removed from Latin or Romance languages thus positing many difficulties to the
translator. But at the same time such difficulties could not be dealt with resorting to

the translators subjective choices: there was too much at stake and the process of translation had to
be presented as authoritative and as conveying the exact meaning of the scriptures.
Other issues complicated what we have come to know as the Bible: first a selection
among sacred scriptures of the Judeo-Christian tradition had to be made. Again such
selection was presented as divinely inspired. But far from being objective divine
inspiration was different for Jewish scholars and the later Christian tradition. For a full
discussion on different attitudes towards Bible translation you can check out pp. 28-33
of Daniel Weissbort and Astradur Eysteinssons (eds) excellent anthology Translation.
Theory and Practice: A Historical Reader. There is a good account of the influential exchange between St
Paul and St Jerome on the implications of their different attitudes towards Bible translation. The volume
gathers numerous texts on translation collected from all periods.
Bible translation influenced views of translation in general. Beyond merely
philological reasons, theological and political ones had an impact on Bible
translation. During the Middle Ages Christian Bible scholars went into heated
debates about what had to be included and how the original had to be translated.
Such debates were of central cultural importance and could end up in different
factions within the Church. Ideas on what God was, on the Nature of Christ, on Morality, on what had to
be read literally, were not uniform and holding the wrong set of ideas at the wrong time could mean
heresy.
One way to end such debates was standardization: first the authoritative text had to be agreed, secondly
a standard translated version (into Latin) had to be promoted as the real, accepted one. Saint Jerome
produced the first Latin version of the Bible in AD 382.
Although translations in other languages were not unknown, the fact remains that it took the invention
of the printing press to make Bible and Bible translations into romance and other languages widely
available.
The Luther Bible in German (1534) and the King James Version in English (1611) are two milestones
not just in translation, but also in the creation of standard German and English.
In translating the classics there are several areas which will be relevant:
1. Choosing the text: how do you fix the actual texts that make up the canonical
Bible? What can one do with conflicting statements?
2. The time gap: translating for contemporary audiences. Would the Bible still make
sense to contemporary audiences if it was translated with the same ideas that made
sense in the Renaissance? Should translators continually approach the Bible to
their actual audiences?
3. The issue of faithfulness to an authoritative original: clearly the translated Bible
needs to be faithful to the original words of God that inspired the source text, but
how many versions can be equally faithful?
4. The voice of the translator: to what extent is the translator supposed to be inspired by Divinity in
order to interpret ambiguous statements or words?

Translating Shakespeare
As one of the key writers in Western culture, translating Shakespeare raises issues which, in the end,
are not dissimilar to the translation of the Bible. But given Shakespeare is literature rather than the
divine words, the difficulties can be resolved by resorting to creativity.
a) It is often hard to fix he actual source text of Shakespeares plays. Rather than handwritten
manuscripts or playscripts supervised by the playwright we have different sources, some of them more
reliable than others. One original version of Hamlet is just over 1000 whereas the fixed, canonical
version used by most companies is over 4000 lines. The problem is that the latter has been collated
from different sources, and decisions have been made.
b) Ideas on art and entertainment were different in the XVII century. Yes,
Hamlet can be regarded as both, yet the balance is bound to be difficult to keep
for translators. Does the target text keep the same balance between substance
and fun? Are they in conflict?
c) Faithfulness to the original intentions is of course a problem, given we dont know a lot about
Shakespeare and it is almost impossible to know what his intentions were.
d) And of course there is an issue with the kind of function that Shakespearean performance may have
nowadays. Hamlet was written for a particular kind of theatre practice. Today, it is translated for film,
for television and for many approaches to performance: there are political Hamlets, there are Hamlets
for the subsidized theatre, for school theatres, for amateur companies, for modern companies each
will require and benefit from different approaches to translation.
e) Finally, in all of these areas (fixing the text, deciding on audiences, deciding on the approach and on
faithfulness) the translator will have to make decisions which cannot be but subjective.
This module
To finish this introduction, here is a little roadmap that will help you look at the
reasons behind the topics discussed in each unit.
This module will encourage you to look at source texts (basically narrative film
texts) paying close attention to the linguistic, narrative and cultural structures
underlying them.
Linguistics and Translation
Units 2, 3 and 4 constitute an introduction to the translation process based on developing views on
language that are sensitive to cultural structures. Language is both produced by culture and produces
the culture of a society. The units are intended to provide you with references and approaches to look
at language and translation in a different way. Particular emphasis will be made on the concept of
function: elements in language not only mean they also do something and translators should be
aware of function (or performativeness) as well as of literal meaning. Unit 4 focuses on an aspect of
language which is sometimes ignored in translation: style. Style is highly conventional but it also
conveys textual meaning. In audiovisual narratives, both TV and film, style can be the key to
characterization.

Film Narrative and Translation

Film narrative goes beyond a series of scenes representing events put together. As
in the case of translation, the literal meaning of the scenes is only a part of what
the film means and how it conveys meaning. The whole is more than the sum of the
parts as it is held together by conventions which have their own meaning and work in specific ways. In
Unit 5 we shall study what dialogue can do in film, and in units 6 and 7 well focus on close film analysis,
applying the ideas and concepts learnt to the Warner Brothers classic Casablanca (Michael Curtiz,
1942). In these three units you shall develop awareness of film language and its structures, which will
help you explain your decisions as translator in terms of functions.

Cultural Studies and Translation

The last section (units 8 and 9) will focus how culture works and how, beyond language, translation can
has culture transfer as its object. Although culture is introduced in units 2 and 3, the last units will
extend those ideas around two areas: humour and cultural references. The comic effect is a good bridge
between cultural translation and film narrative in terms of functionality, as most audiences experience
comedy in terms of laughter. By working around the comic effect we shall explore the difficulties of this
effect to be transferred from one culture into another. Unit 9 will explore more issues of intercultural
translation, with a special focus on the translation of cultural references. The film Clueless (Amy
Heckerling, 1995) will be used to illustrate the difficulties created by cultural references.
The final assignment
Unit 10 puts every concept studied in the course in the context of your
final assignment. This exercise will require you to show that you are
sensitive to the details on how film communicates meanings and
identifying issues and potential problems to the translators. You need to
watch two films before the last unit: Gosford Park (Robert Altman, 2002)
and The Big Lebowski (Coen brothers, 1998)