TRANSLATION STUDIES: A BRIEF HISTORY
TRANSLATION STUDIES
Dr. Rudi Hartono, S.S., M.Pd.
English Education of Undergraduate Program
Semarang State University
1
MATERI 1
TRANSLATION STUDIES:
A BRIEF HISTORY
A brief history of the
discipline
1.
2.
Cicero, Horace (1st cent BCE), St Jerome (4th cent. CE):
The Bible – battleground of conflctlng ldeologles ln western
Europe: llteral vs. free (word or sense; interpres ut orator)
Period until the late 1960s: TR – an element of language
learnlng (ln modern language courses)
–
–
–
–
3.
the grammar-translatlon method)
classlcal languages + M. Luther (modern languages) – translatlon
exerclses
a means of learnlng forelgn language (readlng skllls)
change of attltude wlth the rlse of the dlrect method (spoken
lang.) - NO translatlon ln the classroom
Since the 1970s: TR developed lnto an academlc dlsclpllne
1. The early perlod
• The practlce of translatlon was dlscussed by Cicero and
Horace (first century BCE) and St Jerome (fourth
century AD);
– thelr wrltlngs exerted an lmportant lnfuence up untll the
twentleth century
– St Jerome’s approach to translatlng the Greek Septuaglnt
Blble lnto Latln afected later translatlons of the Scrlptures.
– Non verbum de verbo sed sensum de senso!
• the translation of the Bible was to be – for well over a
thousand years and especlally durlng the Reformatlon ln
the slxteenth century – the battleground of conflctlng
ldeologles ln western Europe
"What happened at the Tower of
Babel?"
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Tower of Babel ls descrlbed ln Genesls chapter 11, verses 1-9. After the Flood, God commanded
humanlty to "increase in number and fii the earth" (Genesls 9:1).
Humanlty declded to do the exact opposlte, "Then they sald, "Come, let us bulld ourselves a clty,
wlth a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be
scattered over the face of the whole earth" (Genesls 11:4).
Humanlty declded to bulld a great clty and all congregate there. They declded to bulld a glgantlc
tower as a symbol thelr power, to make a name for themselves (Genesls 11:4).
Thls tower ls remembered as the Tower of Babei.In response, God confused the ianguages of
humanity so that we couid no ionger communicate with each other (Genesls 11:7).
The result was that people congregated wlth other people who spoke the same language - and then
went and settled ln other parts of the world (Genesls 11:8-9).
God confused the languages at the Tower of Babel to enforce His command for humanity
to spread throughout the entire world.
Some Blble teachers also belleve that God created the dlferent races of humanlty at the Tower of
Babel. Thls ls posslble, but lt ls not taught ln the Blbllcal text. On the orlgln of the races http://www.gotquestlons.org/dlferent-races.html.
It seems more llkely that the dlferent races exlsted prlor to the Tower of Babel and that God
confused the languages at least partlally based on the dlferent races. From the Tower of Babel,
humanlty dlvlded based on language (and posslbly race) and settled ln varlous parts of the world.
•
Recommended Resource: The Answers Book by Ken Ham.
1. Translatlon – before the 20th
century
1. Word-for-word or sense-for-sense TR
2. Martln Luther
3. Early attempts at systematlc TR:
Dryden, Dolet, Tytler
4. Schlelrmacher and the evaluatlon of
the forelgn
5. TR theorles ln 19th and early 20th
cent.
Word-for-word or sense-for-sense TR
• TR theory untll 20th cent.: a sterlle debate over
the trlad iiterai, free, and faithfui TR (Stelner
1998)
• Clcero (1st cent BC, De optimo genere
oratorum):
– word for word vs sense for sense TR – chlef prlnclples
of TR of the age
– word for word (lnterpreter / llteral TLR) - The
replacement of each lndlvldual word of ST (Greek)
wlth lts closest grammatlcal equlvalent ln Latln
(readlng Gr & Lat slde by slde), p. 19
– sense for sense (orator) – procuce a speech that
would move the llsteners
Anclent tradltlon, the Mlddle
Ages
•
•
•
•
Horace (Ars poetlca): the goal of produclng an aesthetlcally
pleaslng and creatlve text ln the TL
St Jerome (lnfuenced by Clcero & Horace) – De optimo genere
interpretandi – 395 AD –
– Now I not oniy admit but freeiy announce that in transiating from
Greek – except of course in the case of the Hoiy Scripture, where
even the syntax contains a mystery – I render not word-for-word
but sense-for-sense.
– Jerome’s vlew lnterpreted later as opposlng poles: iiterai vs free TR
(form vs content) – a perennlal debate
– word-for-word produces an absurd TR, cloaklng the sense of the
orlglnal
Chlnese TR: same type of concern about TR (Sanskrlt Buddhlst
sutras lnto Chlnese)
Rlch TR tradltlon of the Arab world: word-for-word TR
unsuccessful (the Abbasld Perlod – 750-1250)
Matln Luther
• Llteral vs free TR debate contlnued
• ‘correct’ establlshed meanlng of the
Blble
• Any dlverglng from the accepted
lnterpretatlon deemed heretlcal
• Dolet (1546) burned (apparently) for
addlng the phrase rien du tout ln a
passage about whate elsted after
death – lmmortallty lssue!
Non-llteral TR seen as blasphemy, a
weapon agalnst the church:
• The New Testament lnto East Mlddle German
(1522)
• Oid Testament (1534)
• Sendbrief vom Doimetschen (1530) – accused
of alterlng the Holy Scrlptures ln gls vernacular,
dlalect TR, p. 22)
• Accused for addlng the word aiiein – not found
ln the orlglnal
• Rejected word-for-word TR
• Focuslng on the TL and TLT reader (ln the
vernacular)
Falthful, splrlt and truth:
falthful- accurate - translatlon
• Not theory of TR, just explanatlons ln
prefaces
• No conslderatlon of prevlous TR work
• Lack of consecutlveness (Amos
1920)
Kelly (1979) The True
Interpreter
• FIDELITY – (fidus lnterpres)
– lnltlally dlsmlssed as word-for-word TR
– End of 17th cent.: falthfulness to the meanlng rather
than the words of the author
• SPIRIT
– Creatlve energy, lnsplratlon (to llterature)
– StAugustln: The Holy Splrlt
• TRUTH
– Splrlt and truth – lntertwlned (truth = content)
– = not untll 20th cent.
• An lnterconnectlon between fdeiity, spirit and
truth ln the TR of sacre texts
Early attempts at a systematlc theory
of TR
• Dryden (1680): TR categorles:
– Metaphrase: corr. to llteral, word-forword, llne for llne
– Paraphrase: TR wlth latltude, words not
so strlctly followed as the sense; corr. to
falthful, sense-for-sense TR
– Imitation: forsaklng both words and
sense; corr. to free TR and adaptatlon
Dolet (1540): prlnclples of
TR
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
TLR must perfectly understand the sense and the
materlal of the orlglnal author, although he should feel
free to clarlfy obsurltles
TLR should have a perfect knowledge of both SL and
TL, so as not to lessen the majesty of the language
TLR should avold word-for-word renderlngs
TLR should avold Latlnate and unusual forms
TLR should assemble and llalse wlth words eloquently
to avold clumslness
Tytler (1797): laws and
rules:
1. The TR should glve a complete
transcrlpt of the ldeas of the orlglnal
work
2. The style and manner of wrltlng
should be of the same character
wlth that of the orlglnal
3. The TR should have all the ease of
the orlglnal composltlon
Schlelermacher and the valorlzatlon of
the forelgn
• 17th cent.: TR as lmltatlon
• 18th cent.: TLR’s duty to recreate the splrlt of ST for the
reader of the tlme
• Early 19th cent (Romantlclsm):
– Translatablllty vs untranslatablllty
• Schlelermacher (1813) Ueber die verschiedenen
Methoden des Uebersetzens
• Founder of Protestant theology and modern
hemeneutlcs:
– a Romantlc approach to lnterpretatlon
– based not on absolute truth
– but on the lndlvldual’s lnner feellng and understandlng
Schlelermacher, ctd.
• Dlstlngulshed between:
– Dollmetscher (commerclal texts)
– Uebersetzer (scholarly and artlstlc
texts):
• On a hlgher creatlve plane
• Breathlng new llfe lnto the language
• Q: How to brlng the ST wrlter and the
TT reader together?
Only two paths for the ‘true’
TLR:
• Elther the TLR leaves the wrlter alone as much as
posslble and moves the reader to the writer, or
• He leaves the reader alone as much as posslble and
moves the wrlter toward the reader
• TLR must adopt ans ‘allenatlng’ method of TR orlentlng
hlmself by the language and content of the ST
• TLR must valorlze the forelgn and transfer that lnto TL
– He must communlcate the same lmpresslon whlch he/she
recelbed from SLT
– A speclal language of TR ls necessary for compensatlng the
hackneyed expresslon that cannot convey the lmpresslon of
thge forelgn
Schlelermacher’s lnfuence:
• Enormous lnfuence on modern
translatlon
• Conslderatlon of dlferent text types
(Relss)
• Allenatlng vs naturallzlng (Venutl)
• ‘Language of translatlon’ (Benjamln)
• Hermeneutlcs (Stelner)
Late 19th and early 20th
cent.
• Focus on the status of the SLT and the form of
TLT
• Newman (translatlng Homer): forelgnnes of the
work (dellberate archalc language)
• M. Arnold: advocated a transparent TR of
Homer
• Elltlst attltude: It was thought that TR could
never reach the helgths of the ST, lt ls
preferable to read the work ln the orlglnal
language
Result: Devaluatlon and
marglnallzatlon of TR (ln UK):
• Preunlv. and unlv. students of
languages dlssuaded from turnlng to
translatlon for help
• Very llttle popular llterature
translated lnto Engllsh
• Relatlvely few subtltled forelgn films
ln clnemas or on TV
3. TR Studies since
1970s:
•
•
•
TR developed lnto an academic discipiine
US: TR workshops, creatlve wrltlng, Prlnceton, Iowa;
comparative iiterature (cultural studles)
Contrastive anaiysis (TR - subject of research):
Llngulstlc approach : languages ln contrast (1960’s –
1970’s)
–
–
CA: James 1980, Vlnay Darbelnet (1958), Catford 1965,
Connor, Chesterman (2001)
CA useful but falls to account for soclollngulstlc &
pragmatlc factors nor the role of TR as a comm. act
Since 1970s, ctd.
• LINGUISTIC / SYSTEMATIC APPROACH: (1950’s –
1960’s)
• J.P. Vlnay & J. Darbelnet (1958) Styiistique comparee
du francais et de i’angiais – contrastive approach
• G. Mounln (1963) Les probiemes theoriques de ia
traduction – llngulstlc lssues
• E. Nlda (1964) Toward a Science of Transiating =
Ubersetzungswlssenschaft (W. Wllls, Koller, Kade,
Neubert)
• Candldate names: sclence, translatology,
translatologle, traductolgla – studies
Translation Studies
• André Lefevere – Louvaln Colloqulum on
Llterature and Translatlon, 1976
•
Translation Studies – dlsclpllne
concerned wlth ‘the problems ralsed by
the productlon and descrlptlon of
translatlon’
• a dlsclpllne ln lts own rlght: complex
• not a mlnor branch of comparatlve llterary
study
• not a speclfic area of llngulstlcs
THE HOLMES – TOURY
‘map’
J. S. Holmes (1972 / 1988 / 2000)
•
Paper - 1972: Thlrd Internatlonal Congress of Applled
Llngulstlcs (Holmes’ foundlng statement for the field:
•
llmltatlons by TR belng dlspersed across other dlsclpllnes
•
need to reach all scholars worklng ln the field (from whatever
background)
•
cf. ‘map’ of TR studles
•
Holmes ln G. Toury (1995): TR Studles cover:
•
descrlptlon of the phenomena of TR (descr. TR theory - DTS)
•
the establlshment of gen. prlnclples to explaln and predlct
such phenomena (TR theory)
DTS:
• product-orlented DTS (examlnes
exlstlng translatlons) – dlachronlc synchronlc )
• functlon-orlented DTS (functlon of
the translatlon ln the reclplent
soclocultural sltuatlon)
• process-orlented DTS (psychology of
translatlon)
No general - only partlal theorles
• medlum-restrlcted theorles – MT / human
• area-restrlcted theorles – to speclfic language
palrs (contrastlve; styllstlcs)
• rank-restrlcted theorles – word or sentence
• text-type restrlcted – hlstory of TR
• problem-restrlcted - equlvalence, unlt of TR,
unlversals etc.
• NB: a mlx of theorles (‘pure’ aspects of the
theory – preferred by Holmes)
Maln lssues:
1. llteral vs. free vs falthful
2. unlt of translatlon
3. contrastlve analysls
4. the equlvalence problem
5. translatablllty vs untranslatablllty
6. SLT vs TLT relatlon
7. translatlon types
8. translatlon strategles
9. communlcatlon factors
10.cognltlve factors
11.machlne translatlon
12.translatlon quallty assessment
13.translatlon ethlcs / manlpulatlon etc.
DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1970s - summary
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
contrastlve analysls glvlng way
strong llngulstlc-orlented ‘sclence’ approach to TR
(Germany) , decllne of the equlvalence lssue (SnellHornby 1995)
theorles around text types (Relss)
text purpose – ‘skopos’ (Relss, Vermeer)
TR vlewed as a communlcatlve act ln a soclocultural
context (lnfuenced by M.A.K. Halliday: dlscourse
analysls and systemlc functlonal grammar) – Bell 1991,
Baker 1992, Hatlm and Mason (1990, 1997),
e) Hallldayan lnfuence:
• dlscourse analysls and
• systemlc functlonal grammar:
• vlews language as a communlcatlve act ln a
soclocultural context
• promlnent over the past decades ln Australla and the UK:
Bell (1991), Baker (1992) and Hatlm and Mason (1990,
1997)
• the rlse of a descrlptlve approach (late 1970s and the
1980s) G. Toury 1991, 1995), I. Even-Zohar:
• orlglns ln comparatlve llterature and Russlan Formallsm
(Levy, Popovlč)
f. The polysystemlst approach
(Lefevere, Bassnet, Hermans – the
Manlpulatlon School) – dynamlc,
culturally orlented approach –
llterary TR
g. the llterary polysystem ln whlch:
g) the llterary polysystem ln
whlch:
• dlferent llteratures and genres, lncludlng translated and
non-translated works, compete for domlnance (Tel Avlv:
Itamar Even-Zohar and Gldeon Toury)
• The polysystemlsts (André Lefevere, Susan Bassnett and
Theo Hermans), e.g. The Manipuiation of Literature:
Studies in Literary Transiation (Hermans 1985a), the
‘Manlpulatlon School’
• a dynamlc, culturally orlented approach (contlnuatlon of
Holmes’s DTS)
• Gender research (Canada), femlnlst toplcs, postcolonlal
translatlon theory
h) Cultural studles-orlented analysls:
Translator’s lnvlslblllty – Venutl
l) Translatlon studles have become
well establlshed as a dlsclpllne
CONCLUSION:
• Varlous theorles competlng for supremacy
• Spllt between theory and practlce – ways to
overcome lt
• Rapld development of the dlsclpllne
• Challenges of the new technology
• No general and comprehenslve theory
• Rlchness of llngulstlc, llterary, hlstorlcal,
culturallst etc. approaches
• Hollstlc approach
Developments since the
1970s
• Dlferent areas of Holmes’s map come to the fore:
• Contrastlve analysls has fallen by the wayslde
• The llngulstlc-orlented ‘sclence’ of translatlon has
contlnued strongly ln Germany
• concept of equlvalence assoclated the llng. approach has
decllned
• the rlse of theorles centered around text types (Relss;
see chapter 5) and text purpose (the skopos theory of
Relss and Vermeer
•
•
•
•
Hallldayan lnfuence of
dlscourse analysls and
systemlc functlonal grammar
whlch vlews language as a communlcatlve act ln a
soclocultural context
• promlnent over the past decades ln Australla and the UK:
Bell (1991), Baker (1992) and Hatlm and Mason (1990,
1997)
• - the rlse of a descrlptlve approach (late 1970s and the
1980s):
• - orlglns ln comparatlve llterature and Russlan Formallsm
(Levy, Popovlč)
• The Polysystems approach:
• the llterary polysystem ln whlch:
• dlferent llteratures and genres, lncludlng translated and
non-translated works, compete for domlnance (Tel Avlv:
Itamar Even-Zohar and Gldeon Toury)
• The polysystemlsts (André Lefevere, Susan Bassnett and
Theo Hermans), e.g. The Manipuiation of Literature:
Studies in Literary Transiation (Hermans 1985a), the
‘Manlpulatlon School’
• a dynamlc, culturally orlented approach (contlnuatlon of
Holmes’s DTS)
Nature of translatlon
TR – a form of lnterhuman
communlcatlon
Jakobson:
– lntrallngual
– lnterllngual
– lntersemlotlc
TRANSLATION STUDIES
•
•
•
Holmes: 1972 / 1988 – 2000: The name and nature of TR
studies
= ‘the complex of problems clustered round the phenomenon
of translatlng and translatlons’
M. Snell-Hornby 1988: TR studies: An Integrai Approach
–
‘the demand that TR Studles should be vlewed as an
lndependent dlsclpllne … has come from several quarters
ln recent years’
M. Baker (1997) The Routledge Encyclopaedla. :
TRS – ‘excltlng new dlsclpllne’, brlnglng together scholars
from a wlde varlety of often more tradltlonal dlsclpllnes
TRANSLATION STUDIES lmpact
•
•
•
•
•
Vlslble ways of promlnence:
prollferatlon of speclallzed translatlng (BA / MA)
prollferatlon of lnterpretlng courses
llterary translatlon
prollferatlon of conferences, books and journals (Babei,
Traduire, Perspectives, Rivista int. di technica deiia
traduzione, Target, Transiator)
• publlshers: Benjamlns, Routledge, St. Jerome,
Multlllngual Matters)
• assoclatlons’ bulletlns: The Linguist, the ITI Buiietin (Inst.
For Transiating and Interpreters, TRANSST, BET, In Other
Words)
Good Luck
42
Dr. Rudi Hartono, S.S., M.Pd.
English Education of Undergraduate Program
Semarang State University
1
MATERI 1
TRANSLATION STUDIES:
A BRIEF HISTORY
A brief history of the
discipline
1.
2.
Cicero, Horace (1st cent BCE), St Jerome (4th cent. CE):
The Bible – battleground of conflctlng ldeologles ln western
Europe: llteral vs. free (word or sense; interpres ut orator)
Period until the late 1960s: TR – an element of language
learnlng (ln modern language courses)
–
–
–
–
3.
the grammar-translatlon method)
classlcal languages + M. Luther (modern languages) – translatlon
exerclses
a means of learnlng forelgn language (readlng skllls)
change of attltude wlth the rlse of the dlrect method (spoken
lang.) - NO translatlon ln the classroom
Since the 1970s: TR developed lnto an academlc dlsclpllne
1. The early perlod
• The practlce of translatlon was dlscussed by Cicero and
Horace (first century BCE) and St Jerome (fourth
century AD);
– thelr wrltlngs exerted an lmportant lnfuence up untll the
twentleth century
– St Jerome’s approach to translatlng the Greek Septuaglnt
Blble lnto Latln afected later translatlons of the Scrlptures.
– Non verbum de verbo sed sensum de senso!
• the translation of the Bible was to be – for well over a
thousand years and especlally durlng the Reformatlon ln
the slxteenth century – the battleground of conflctlng
ldeologles ln western Europe
"What happened at the Tower of
Babel?"
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Tower of Babel ls descrlbed ln Genesls chapter 11, verses 1-9. After the Flood, God commanded
humanlty to "increase in number and fii the earth" (Genesls 9:1).
Humanlty declded to do the exact opposlte, "Then they sald, "Come, let us bulld ourselves a clty,
wlth a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be
scattered over the face of the whole earth" (Genesls 11:4).
Humanlty declded to bulld a great clty and all congregate there. They declded to bulld a glgantlc
tower as a symbol thelr power, to make a name for themselves (Genesls 11:4).
Thls tower ls remembered as the Tower of Babei.In response, God confused the ianguages of
humanity so that we couid no ionger communicate with each other (Genesls 11:7).
The result was that people congregated wlth other people who spoke the same language - and then
went and settled ln other parts of the world (Genesls 11:8-9).
God confused the languages at the Tower of Babel to enforce His command for humanity
to spread throughout the entire world.
Some Blble teachers also belleve that God created the dlferent races of humanlty at the Tower of
Babel. Thls ls posslble, but lt ls not taught ln the Blbllcal text. On the orlgln of the races http://www.gotquestlons.org/dlferent-races.html.
It seems more llkely that the dlferent races exlsted prlor to the Tower of Babel and that God
confused the languages at least partlally based on the dlferent races. From the Tower of Babel,
humanlty dlvlded based on language (and posslbly race) and settled ln varlous parts of the world.
•
Recommended Resource: The Answers Book by Ken Ham.
1. Translatlon – before the 20th
century
1. Word-for-word or sense-for-sense TR
2. Martln Luther
3. Early attempts at systematlc TR:
Dryden, Dolet, Tytler
4. Schlelrmacher and the evaluatlon of
the forelgn
5. TR theorles ln 19th and early 20th
cent.
Word-for-word or sense-for-sense TR
• TR theory untll 20th cent.: a sterlle debate over
the trlad iiterai, free, and faithfui TR (Stelner
1998)
• Clcero (1st cent BC, De optimo genere
oratorum):
– word for word vs sense for sense TR – chlef prlnclples
of TR of the age
– word for word (lnterpreter / llteral TLR) - The
replacement of each lndlvldual word of ST (Greek)
wlth lts closest grammatlcal equlvalent ln Latln
(readlng Gr & Lat slde by slde), p. 19
– sense for sense (orator) – procuce a speech that
would move the llsteners
Anclent tradltlon, the Mlddle
Ages
•
•
•
•
Horace (Ars poetlca): the goal of produclng an aesthetlcally
pleaslng and creatlve text ln the TL
St Jerome (lnfuenced by Clcero & Horace) – De optimo genere
interpretandi – 395 AD –
– Now I not oniy admit but freeiy announce that in transiating from
Greek – except of course in the case of the Hoiy Scripture, where
even the syntax contains a mystery – I render not word-for-word
but sense-for-sense.
– Jerome’s vlew lnterpreted later as opposlng poles: iiterai vs free TR
(form vs content) – a perennlal debate
– word-for-word produces an absurd TR, cloaklng the sense of the
orlglnal
Chlnese TR: same type of concern about TR (Sanskrlt Buddhlst
sutras lnto Chlnese)
Rlch TR tradltlon of the Arab world: word-for-word TR
unsuccessful (the Abbasld Perlod – 750-1250)
Matln Luther
• Llteral vs free TR debate contlnued
• ‘correct’ establlshed meanlng of the
Blble
• Any dlverglng from the accepted
lnterpretatlon deemed heretlcal
• Dolet (1546) burned (apparently) for
addlng the phrase rien du tout ln a
passage about whate elsted after
death – lmmortallty lssue!
Non-llteral TR seen as blasphemy, a
weapon agalnst the church:
• The New Testament lnto East Mlddle German
(1522)
• Oid Testament (1534)
• Sendbrief vom Doimetschen (1530) – accused
of alterlng the Holy Scrlptures ln gls vernacular,
dlalect TR, p. 22)
• Accused for addlng the word aiiein – not found
ln the orlglnal
• Rejected word-for-word TR
• Focuslng on the TL and TLT reader (ln the
vernacular)
Falthful, splrlt and truth:
falthful- accurate - translatlon
• Not theory of TR, just explanatlons ln
prefaces
• No conslderatlon of prevlous TR work
• Lack of consecutlveness (Amos
1920)
Kelly (1979) The True
Interpreter
• FIDELITY – (fidus lnterpres)
– lnltlally dlsmlssed as word-for-word TR
– End of 17th cent.: falthfulness to the meanlng rather
than the words of the author
• SPIRIT
– Creatlve energy, lnsplratlon (to llterature)
– StAugustln: The Holy Splrlt
• TRUTH
– Splrlt and truth – lntertwlned (truth = content)
– = not untll 20th cent.
• An lnterconnectlon between fdeiity, spirit and
truth ln the TR of sacre texts
Early attempts at a systematlc theory
of TR
• Dryden (1680): TR categorles:
– Metaphrase: corr. to llteral, word-forword, llne for llne
– Paraphrase: TR wlth latltude, words not
so strlctly followed as the sense; corr. to
falthful, sense-for-sense TR
– Imitation: forsaklng both words and
sense; corr. to free TR and adaptatlon
Dolet (1540): prlnclples of
TR
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
TLR must perfectly understand the sense and the
materlal of the orlglnal author, although he should feel
free to clarlfy obsurltles
TLR should have a perfect knowledge of both SL and
TL, so as not to lessen the majesty of the language
TLR should avold word-for-word renderlngs
TLR should avold Latlnate and unusual forms
TLR should assemble and llalse wlth words eloquently
to avold clumslness
Tytler (1797): laws and
rules:
1. The TR should glve a complete
transcrlpt of the ldeas of the orlglnal
work
2. The style and manner of wrltlng
should be of the same character
wlth that of the orlglnal
3. The TR should have all the ease of
the orlglnal composltlon
Schlelermacher and the valorlzatlon of
the forelgn
• 17th cent.: TR as lmltatlon
• 18th cent.: TLR’s duty to recreate the splrlt of ST for the
reader of the tlme
• Early 19th cent (Romantlclsm):
– Translatablllty vs untranslatablllty
• Schlelermacher (1813) Ueber die verschiedenen
Methoden des Uebersetzens
• Founder of Protestant theology and modern
hemeneutlcs:
– a Romantlc approach to lnterpretatlon
– based not on absolute truth
– but on the lndlvldual’s lnner feellng and understandlng
Schlelermacher, ctd.
• Dlstlngulshed between:
– Dollmetscher (commerclal texts)
– Uebersetzer (scholarly and artlstlc
texts):
• On a hlgher creatlve plane
• Breathlng new llfe lnto the language
• Q: How to brlng the ST wrlter and the
TT reader together?
Only two paths for the ‘true’
TLR:
• Elther the TLR leaves the wrlter alone as much as
posslble and moves the reader to the writer, or
• He leaves the reader alone as much as posslble and
moves the wrlter toward the reader
• TLR must adopt ans ‘allenatlng’ method of TR orlentlng
hlmself by the language and content of the ST
• TLR must valorlze the forelgn and transfer that lnto TL
– He must communlcate the same lmpresslon whlch he/she
recelbed from SLT
– A speclal language of TR ls necessary for compensatlng the
hackneyed expresslon that cannot convey the lmpresslon of
thge forelgn
Schlelermacher’s lnfuence:
• Enormous lnfuence on modern
translatlon
• Conslderatlon of dlferent text types
(Relss)
• Allenatlng vs naturallzlng (Venutl)
• ‘Language of translatlon’ (Benjamln)
• Hermeneutlcs (Stelner)
Late 19th and early 20th
cent.
• Focus on the status of the SLT and the form of
TLT
• Newman (translatlng Homer): forelgnnes of the
work (dellberate archalc language)
• M. Arnold: advocated a transparent TR of
Homer
• Elltlst attltude: It was thought that TR could
never reach the helgths of the ST, lt ls
preferable to read the work ln the orlglnal
language
Result: Devaluatlon and
marglnallzatlon of TR (ln UK):
• Preunlv. and unlv. students of
languages dlssuaded from turnlng to
translatlon for help
• Very llttle popular llterature
translated lnto Engllsh
• Relatlvely few subtltled forelgn films
ln clnemas or on TV
3. TR Studies since
1970s:
•
•
•
TR developed lnto an academic discipiine
US: TR workshops, creatlve wrltlng, Prlnceton, Iowa;
comparative iiterature (cultural studles)
Contrastive anaiysis (TR - subject of research):
Llngulstlc approach : languages ln contrast (1960’s –
1970’s)
–
–
CA: James 1980, Vlnay Darbelnet (1958), Catford 1965,
Connor, Chesterman (2001)
CA useful but falls to account for soclollngulstlc &
pragmatlc factors nor the role of TR as a comm. act
Since 1970s, ctd.
• LINGUISTIC / SYSTEMATIC APPROACH: (1950’s –
1960’s)
• J.P. Vlnay & J. Darbelnet (1958) Styiistique comparee
du francais et de i’angiais – contrastive approach
• G. Mounln (1963) Les probiemes theoriques de ia
traduction – llngulstlc lssues
• E. Nlda (1964) Toward a Science of Transiating =
Ubersetzungswlssenschaft (W. Wllls, Koller, Kade,
Neubert)
• Candldate names: sclence, translatology,
translatologle, traductolgla – studies
Translation Studies
• André Lefevere – Louvaln Colloqulum on
Llterature and Translatlon, 1976
•
Translation Studies – dlsclpllne
concerned wlth ‘the problems ralsed by
the productlon and descrlptlon of
translatlon’
• a dlsclpllne ln lts own rlght: complex
• not a mlnor branch of comparatlve llterary
study
• not a speclfic area of llngulstlcs
THE HOLMES – TOURY
‘map’
J. S. Holmes (1972 / 1988 / 2000)
•
Paper - 1972: Thlrd Internatlonal Congress of Applled
Llngulstlcs (Holmes’ foundlng statement for the field:
•
llmltatlons by TR belng dlspersed across other dlsclpllnes
•
need to reach all scholars worklng ln the field (from whatever
background)
•
cf. ‘map’ of TR studles
•
Holmes ln G. Toury (1995): TR Studles cover:
•
descrlptlon of the phenomena of TR (descr. TR theory - DTS)
•
the establlshment of gen. prlnclples to explaln and predlct
such phenomena (TR theory)
DTS:
• product-orlented DTS (examlnes
exlstlng translatlons) – dlachronlc synchronlc )
• functlon-orlented DTS (functlon of
the translatlon ln the reclplent
soclocultural sltuatlon)
• process-orlented DTS (psychology of
translatlon)
No general - only partlal theorles
• medlum-restrlcted theorles – MT / human
• area-restrlcted theorles – to speclfic language
palrs (contrastlve; styllstlcs)
• rank-restrlcted theorles – word or sentence
• text-type restrlcted – hlstory of TR
• problem-restrlcted - equlvalence, unlt of TR,
unlversals etc.
• NB: a mlx of theorles (‘pure’ aspects of the
theory – preferred by Holmes)
Maln lssues:
1. llteral vs. free vs falthful
2. unlt of translatlon
3. contrastlve analysls
4. the equlvalence problem
5. translatablllty vs untranslatablllty
6. SLT vs TLT relatlon
7. translatlon types
8. translatlon strategles
9. communlcatlon factors
10.cognltlve factors
11.machlne translatlon
12.translatlon quallty assessment
13.translatlon ethlcs / manlpulatlon etc.
DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1970s - summary
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
contrastlve analysls glvlng way
strong llngulstlc-orlented ‘sclence’ approach to TR
(Germany) , decllne of the equlvalence lssue (SnellHornby 1995)
theorles around text types (Relss)
text purpose – ‘skopos’ (Relss, Vermeer)
TR vlewed as a communlcatlve act ln a soclocultural
context (lnfuenced by M.A.K. Halliday: dlscourse
analysls and systemlc functlonal grammar) – Bell 1991,
Baker 1992, Hatlm and Mason (1990, 1997),
e) Hallldayan lnfuence:
• dlscourse analysls and
• systemlc functlonal grammar:
• vlews language as a communlcatlve act ln a
soclocultural context
• promlnent over the past decades ln Australla and the UK:
Bell (1991), Baker (1992) and Hatlm and Mason (1990,
1997)
• the rlse of a descrlptlve approach (late 1970s and the
1980s) G. Toury 1991, 1995), I. Even-Zohar:
• orlglns ln comparatlve llterature and Russlan Formallsm
(Levy, Popovlč)
f. The polysystemlst approach
(Lefevere, Bassnet, Hermans – the
Manlpulatlon School) – dynamlc,
culturally orlented approach –
llterary TR
g. the llterary polysystem ln whlch:
g) the llterary polysystem ln
whlch:
• dlferent llteratures and genres, lncludlng translated and
non-translated works, compete for domlnance (Tel Avlv:
Itamar Even-Zohar and Gldeon Toury)
• The polysystemlsts (André Lefevere, Susan Bassnett and
Theo Hermans), e.g. The Manipuiation of Literature:
Studies in Literary Transiation (Hermans 1985a), the
‘Manlpulatlon School’
• a dynamlc, culturally orlented approach (contlnuatlon of
Holmes’s DTS)
• Gender research (Canada), femlnlst toplcs, postcolonlal
translatlon theory
h) Cultural studles-orlented analysls:
Translator’s lnvlslblllty – Venutl
l) Translatlon studles have become
well establlshed as a dlsclpllne
CONCLUSION:
• Varlous theorles competlng for supremacy
• Spllt between theory and practlce – ways to
overcome lt
• Rapld development of the dlsclpllne
• Challenges of the new technology
• No general and comprehenslve theory
• Rlchness of llngulstlc, llterary, hlstorlcal,
culturallst etc. approaches
• Hollstlc approach
Developments since the
1970s
• Dlferent areas of Holmes’s map come to the fore:
• Contrastlve analysls has fallen by the wayslde
• The llngulstlc-orlented ‘sclence’ of translatlon has
contlnued strongly ln Germany
• concept of equlvalence assoclated the llng. approach has
decllned
• the rlse of theorles centered around text types (Relss;
see chapter 5) and text purpose (the skopos theory of
Relss and Vermeer
•
•
•
•
Hallldayan lnfuence of
dlscourse analysls and
systemlc functlonal grammar
whlch vlews language as a communlcatlve act ln a
soclocultural context
• promlnent over the past decades ln Australla and the UK:
Bell (1991), Baker (1992) and Hatlm and Mason (1990,
1997)
• - the rlse of a descrlptlve approach (late 1970s and the
1980s):
• - orlglns ln comparatlve llterature and Russlan Formallsm
(Levy, Popovlč)
• The Polysystems approach:
• the llterary polysystem ln whlch:
• dlferent llteratures and genres, lncludlng translated and
non-translated works, compete for domlnance (Tel Avlv:
Itamar Even-Zohar and Gldeon Toury)
• The polysystemlsts (André Lefevere, Susan Bassnett and
Theo Hermans), e.g. The Manipuiation of Literature:
Studies in Literary Transiation (Hermans 1985a), the
‘Manlpulatlon School’
• a dynamlc, culturally orlented approach (contlnuatlon of
Holmes’s DTS)
Nature of translatlon
TR – a form of lnterhuman
communlcatlon
Jakobson:
– lntrallngual
– lnterllngual
– lntersemlotlc
TRANSLATION STUDIES
•
•
•
Holmes: 1972 / 1988 – 2000: The name and nature of TR
studies
= ‘the complex of problems clustered round the phenomenon
of translatlng and translatlons’
M. Snell-Hornby 1988: TR studies: An Integrai Approach
–
‘the demand that TR Studles should be vlewed as an
lndependent dlsclpllne … has come from several quarters
ln recent years’
M. Baker (1997) The Routledge Encyclopaedla. :
TRS – ‘excltlng new dlsclpllne’, brlnglng together scholars
from a wlde varlety of often more tradltlonal dlsclpllnes
TRANSLATION STUDIES lmpact
•
•
•
•
•
Vlslble ways of promlnence:
prollferatlon of speclallzed translatlng (BA / MA)
prollferatlon of lnterpretlng courses
llterary translatlon
prollferatlon of conferences, books and journals (Babei,
Traduire, Perspectives, Rivista int. di technica deiia
traduzione, Target, Transiator)
• publlshers: Benjamlns, Routledge, St. Jerome,
Multlllngual Matters)
• assoclatlons’ bulletlns: The Linguist, the ITI Buiietin (Inst.
For Transiating and Interpreters, TRANSST, BET, In Other
Words)
Good Luck
42