Site Search Contact Us Site Map Home

'T is true, composing is the nobler part
But good translation is no easy art

Translation essentially entails bridging interlanguage space, creating paths from a Source Text (ST) on to an intended Target Text (TT). Although there is an undeniable gut link between language and translation and thereby between Linguistics and Translation Studies, one could very well argue that knowledge of the science of language may be necessary but not sufficient to understand the dynamics of the phenomenon of translation. Andrew Lefevere (1992) ) makes the valid point that the translator thinks first of a Conceptual grid and a Textual grid rather than on a 'linguistic' level. The point to make then would be that these conceptual and textual grids are borne in the medium of language, that the grids are a function of, are shaped by, and are embodied in the basic constitutive material of language. In the literature this doesn't seem to have been realized. Peter Newmark (1981) , for instance, says "A successful translation is probably more dependent on the translator's empathy with the writer's thought than on affinity with language and culture" How is this thought accessed except through language? If the force of this rhetorical question goes home, then the force of the problematic nature of the notion of equivalence as asserted by a statement like

"…Once the translator moves away from close linguistic equivalence, the problems of determining the exact nature of the level of equivalence aimed for begin to emerge" Bassnett, (1980, revised edition 1991) begins to dissipate.

John Dryden (1680) , the renowned English poet and critic, proposed a triadic model of translation:

1. Metaphrase : 'Word by word and line-by-line translation. This corresponds to literal translation.
2. Paraphrase : 'translation with latitude where his (=the author's) words are not so strictly followed as his sense'. This corresponds to 'sense for sense' translation.
3. Imitation : 'Forsakes both 'word for word ' and 'sense for sense' translation'. This corresponds to adaptation.

John Dryden (1697) prescribed paraphrase, but later advocated a point between paraphrase and metaphrase.

As is known, the literal word-for-word Vs free sense-for-sense translation dyad dominated, sterilely as Jeremy Munday (2001) comments, translation debates before the twentieth century, Horace (20B.C), Cicero (46 BC), and Jerome (395 CE/1997) all favouring 'sense-for-sense' translation. It is clear however that there is a whole continuum, stretching from the literal at the one extreme, to the free, which is the other extreme, allowing different degrees of freedom to the translator. Pyu (1996:23-27) offers a model of such a continuum, which is summarized and translated by Chi-Chang Shei of Chang Jung University, China (of the TransFree translation teaching software project) as follows:

1. Word-for -word translation :
     Translate each word based on the first definition of such word in a bilingual dictionary, keeping the original word order.
2. Literal translation :
     In response to target language grammar, make minimum adjustments of word order, addition and omission of words, still disregarding the co-text of discourse altogether.
3. Semantic translation :
     While attempting to keep the format of the source language and the author's intention, try to make translation natural and fluent.
4. Communicative translation :
     When necessary, sacrifice the original ways of expressions and the author's intention in order to meet the requirements of the readers of translation, performing various substantial addition, omission and paraphrasing.
5. Free translation :
     Taking one step further than communicative translation, delete, replace, condense, summarize, and explain at will in exchange for the understanding of the reader.

A word about the word 'fidelity' is in order. Fidelity used to be taken to mean literal word-for-word translation. Horace dismissed the concept of fidelity precisely because it meant literal word-for-word translation. As Munday (2001) points out, it was not until the end of the seventeenth century that fidelity really came to mean faithfulness to the meaning rather than to the words of the writer. This historical fact may have to do with translation of religious texts. The words that occur in sacred texts are inviolable god's words and so fidelity is fidelity to the words rather than to the content. By the seventeenth century fidelity, truth and spirit came to be identified with the content and creative energy of the text and not to its linguistic clothing. A recent term that has come into translation terminology is 'abusive fidelity' Lewis (1985/2000). This entails risk-taking and experimentation with the expressive and rhetorical devices of language, supplementing and giving ST renewed energy. In Lewis's own words, it is "the strong, forceful translation that values experimentation, tampers with usage, seeks to match the polyvalencies or pluralivocities or expressive stresses of the original by producing its own". As the field progresses we are likely to find ourselves in need of newer and newer axiomatics of notions like fidelity, equivalence, foreignising, domesticating, and so on.

Corresponding to and harking back to the age-old literal-free translation, Vinay and Darbelnet talk of direct and oblique translation. Of the seven procedures viz.

Literal translation
Equivalence and

the first three constitute literal translation. According to Vinay and Darbelnet , 'word for word' translation is the most common between the languages of the same family and expressive of the same kind of culture. They say that 'literalness should be sacrificed only because of structural and metalinguistic requirements and only after checking that the meaning is fully preserved'. Importantly, literal translation may be judged unacceptable because of five situations:

When it gives a different meaning.
When it has no meaning.
When it is impossible for structural reasons
When it does not have a corresponding expression within the metalinguistic experience of the TL.
When it corresponds to something at a different level of language.
| About the site |  About Translation |  Translator Education |  Tools |  Translation Today: E-zine |
|  Professional Translation |  Inlan: The e- translator |  News & Events |  Other links |