Introducing Translation Studies – Jeremy Munday (3rd edition)
Chapter 1: Main issues of translation studies
Translation today has several meanings:
1. The general subject field or phenomenon („I studied translation at university‟)
2. The product – that is, the text that has been translated („they published the translation of the
report‟)
3. The process of producing the translation, otherwise known as translating („translation
service‟)
Source text (ST) Target text (TT)
in source language (SL) in target language (TL)
Three categories of translation (by Roman Jakobson 1896-1982):
1. Intralingual translation, or „rewording‟ – „an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other
signs of the same language‟ (kinderencyclopedie / bijsluiter begrijpelijk maken)
2. Interlingual translation, or „translation proper‟ – „an interpretation of verbal signs by means
of some other language‟ (tussen twee talen)
3. Intersemiotic translation, or „transmutation‟ – „an interpretation of verbal signs by means of
signs of non-verbal sign systems‟ (tekst film)
Semiotics = the general science of communication through signs and sign systems, of which language
is but one.
Sandra Halverson claims that translation can be better considered as a prototype classification, that is,
that there are basic core features that we associate with a prototypical translation, and other
translational forms which lie on the periphery.
Translation studies really began in the second half of the twentieth century. There are four very visible
ways in which translation studies has become more prominent:
1. Expansion in specialized translating and interpreting programmes
2. Proliferation of conferences, books and journals on translation
3. Increased demand for general and analytical instruments such as anthologies, databases,
encyclopedias, handbooks and introductory texts.
4. International organisations have prospered
Grammar-translation = centred on the rote study of the grammatical rules and structures of the foreign
language. Translation exercises were regarded as a means of learning a new language or of reading a
foreign language text until one had the linguistic ability to read the original.
Alternative forms of language teaching:
- Direct method
- Communicative approach: stressed students‟ natural capacity to learn language and attempts to
replicate „authentic‟ language-learning conditions in the classroom.
Comparative literature = where literature is studied and compared transnationally and transculturally,
necessitating the reading of some works in translation.
Contrastive linguistics = the study of two languages in contrast in an attempt to identify general and
specific differences between them.
1
,Holmes‟s „map‟ of translation studies: (page 16/19)
The applied branch of translation studies:
„Applied‟
Translator training Translation aids Translation criticism
teaching testing curriculum revision evaluation of
methods techniques design translations
editing/ reviews
reviews
IT applications dictionaries, expert
grammars informants
machine corpora CAT* online internet online
translation tools databases searches forums
*Computer-assisted translation tools, such as translation memory systems
The van Doorslaer „map‟ = in the new maps, a distinction is drawn between „translation‟ and
„translation studies‟
Translation = the act of translating:
- Lingual mode
- Media
- Mode
- Field
Translation studies:
- Approaches
- Theories
- Research methods
- Applied translation studies
Page 23/24: Translation studies and translation procedures.
Chapter 2: Translation theory before the twentieth century
The central recurring theme during the pre-linguistics period of translation is the debate of „word-for-
word‟ (literal) and „sense-for-sense‟ (free) translation. This was up until the second half of the
twentieth century in the western translation theory. The distinction goes back to Cicero (106-43 BCE)
and St Jerome (347-420 CE)
2
,Cicero
“And I did not translate them as an interpreter, but as an orator, keeping the same ideas and forms, or as one might say, the
„figures‟ of thought, but in language which conforms to our usage. And in so doing, I did not hold it necessary to render word
for word, but I preserved the general style and force of the language.”
The „interpreter‟ of the first line is the literal (word-for-word) translator, while the „orator‟ tried to
produce a speech that moved the listeners.
Horace
Underlines the goal of producing an aesthetically pleasing and creative text in the TL.
St Jerome
The Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew Bible. It has been described as the first major
translation in western culture.
“Now I not only admit but freely announce that in translating from the Greek – except of course in the case of the Holy
Scripture, where even the syntax contains a mystery – I render not word-for-word, but sense-for-sense.”
Jerome‟s statement is now usually taken to refer to what came to be known as „literal‟ (word-for-
word) and „free‟ (sense-for-sense) translation. Jerome rejected the word-for-word approach because,
by following so closely the form of the ST, it produced an absurd translation, cloaking the sense of the
original. The sense-for-sense approach, on the other hand, allowed the sense or content of the ST to be
translated. Here is the origin of both the „literal vs. free‟ and „form vs. content‟ debate.
Jerome is explicitly making some distinction between different text types. While he translated
Epiphenius‟s letter idiomatically (sense-for-sense), the Bible, he says, necessitated a literal method
that paid closer attention to the words, syntax and ideas of the original.
Early Chinese and Arabic discourse on translation
Sutra translation provided a fertile ground for the practice and discussion of different translation
approaches. Translations produced in the first phase (c. 148-265) were word-for-word renderings
adhering closely to source-language syntax. This was due to the lack of bilingual ability and a belief
that the sacred words of the enlightened should not be tampered with.
The second phase (c. 265-589) saw an obvious swing towards what many contemporary
Chinese scholars call yìyì (free translation, „translation of meaning‟).
During the third phase, they thought attention should be paid to the style of original text:
literary polishing was not to be applied to simple and plain source texts.
The opposite of yìyì is called zhìyì, which has been translated as „straightforward‟ or „direct‟
translation
Dào’an
Lists five elements, called shiben (losses), where meaning was subject to change in translation:
1. Coping with the flexibility of Sanskrit syntax by reversing to a standard Chinese order
2. The enhancement of the literariness of the ST to adapt to an elegant Chinese style
3. The omission of repetitive exclamations
4. The reduction in the paratextual commentaries that accompany the TTs
5. Reduction or restructuring to ensure more logical and linear discourse
Also lists three factors (buyi, difficulties) that necessitated special care:
1. The directing of the message to a new audience
2. The sanctity of the ST words
3. The special status of the STs themselves as the cumulative work of so many followers
3
,Humanism and the Protestant Reformation
Latin had a monopoly over knowledge and religion until challenged by the European Humanist
movement of the fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries. During the Protestant Reformation (15th
century), even the mere act of translation could be considered a threat to the established order. An
even worse fate lay in store for some of the translators who sought to make such texts available to a
wider public:
1. William Tyndale (theologian-translator)
2. Étienne Dolet (French humanist): condemned by the theological faculty of the Sorbonne in
1546 for adding „nothing at all‟ in a passage of Plato of what existed after death. For such a
translation „error‟, he was burned at the stake.
Martin Luther
In response to accusations that he had altered the Holy Scriptures in his translations, Luther defended
himself in his „Circular letter on translation‟ of 1530.
“Therefore, we hold, that man is justified without the works of the law, only through faith.”
Luther had been heavily criticized by the Church for the addition of the word „only‟, because there
was no equivalent Greek word in the ST.
Faithfulness, spirit and truth
The concept of fidality had initially been dismissed as literal, word-for-word translation by Horace. It
was not until the end of the seventeenth century that fidelity had come to be generally identified with
faithfulness to the meaning rather than the words of the author.
Spirit has two meanings:
1. Kelly said it denotes creative energy or inspiration, proper to literature
2. St Augustine used it to mean the Holy Spirit of God
St Jerome employed it in both senses, but much later spirit lost the religious sense.
Truth has the sense of „content‟. For St Augustine, it was intertwined with spirit.
Early attempts at systematic translation theory
John Dryden (1631-1700)
Reduces all translation to three categories:
1. Metaphrase: „word by word and line by line‟ translation, which corresponds to literal
translation
2. Paraphrase: translation with latitude, where the author is kept in view by the translator, but
his words are not so strictly followed as his sense, which corresponds to faithful or sense-for-
sense translation
3. Imitation: „forsaking‟ both words and sense. Very free translation and is understood as
adaptation
Graphically, we might represent this as follows:
Literal translation Free translation Adaptation
Word for word sense for sense
Metaphrase paraphrase imitation
4
, Étienne Dolet
Sets out five principles in order of importance as follows:
1. The translator must perfectly understand the sense and material of the original author,
although he should feel free to clarify obscurities
2. The translator should have a perfect knowledge of both SL and TL, so as not to lessen the
majesty of the language
3. The translator should avoid word-for-word renderings
4. The translator should avoid Latinate and unusual forms
5. The translator should assemble and liaise words eloquently to avoid clumsiness
Alexander Fraser Tytler
Wrote the three principles of translation (laws or rules):
1. The translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work
2. The style and manner of writing should be of the same character with that of the original
3. The translation should have all the ease of the original composition
Yán Fù
Three principles of translation:
1. Xìn: fidelity/faithfulness/trueness
2. Dá: fluency/expresiveness/intelligibility/comprehensibility
3. Ya: elegance/gracefulness
Schleiermacher and the valorization of the foreign
Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834)
Recognized as a founder of modern Protestant theology and modern hermeneutics. He distinguishes
two different types of translator working on two different types of texts:
1. The dolmetscher, who translates commercial texts
2. The übersetzer, who works on scholarly and artistic texts
It is this second type that Schleiermacher sees as being on a higher creative plane
“Either the translator leaves the writer in peace as much as possible and moves the reader toward him, or he leaves the reader
in peace as much as possible and moves the writer toward him.”
Schleiermacher‟s preferred strategy is to move the reader towards the writer. This does not entail
writing as the author would have done had he written in German. That would be similar to Dryden‟s
formula, a naturalizing method that brought the foreign text in line with the typical patterns of the
TL. Instead, Schleiermacher‟s method is to „give the reader, through the translation, the impression he
would have received as a German reading the work in the original language.‟ To achieve this, the
translator must adopt an alienating, „foreignizing‟ method of translation.
There are several consequences of this approach:
- If the translator is to seek to communicate the same impression which he or she received from
the ST, this impression will also depend on the level of education and understanding among
the TT readership, and this is likely to differ from the translator‟s own understanding.
- A special language of translation may be necessary, for example compensating in one place
with imaginative word where elsewhere the translator has to make do with a heckneyed
expression that cannot convey the impression of the foreign.
5
