Lecture 3
Introduction to translation studies
• Is a translation meant for readers who do not understand the original?
This would seem to explain adequately the divergence of their
standing in the realm of art. Moreover, it seems to be the only
conceivable reason for saying “the same thing” repeatedly. For what
does a literary work “say”? What does it communicate? It “tells” very
little to those who understand it. Its essential quality is not statement
or the imparting of information. Yet any translation which intends to
perform a transmitting function cannot transmit anything but
information hence, something inessential.
Dampiyā aṭuvā geatapada
explanation
• wre;a úiska ta wgqjdju ^lshfkñ& k ioaof;d - Yío jYfhka
^fkd lshfkñ& ioaof;d mk - Yío jYfhka n<;a" Ndika;frk -
wkH NdIdfhlska - fm< niska' Ndisiaix - lshkafkñ'
• since no two languages are identical, either in the meanings given to
corresponding symbols or in the ways in which such symbols are
arranged in phrases and sentences, it stands to reason that there can be
no absolute correspondence between languages. Hence there can be no
fully exact translations. The total impact of a translation may be
reasonably close to the original, but there can be no identity in detail.
Constance [Link] (1932:344) clearly states the problem: “Whoever
takes upon himself to translate contracts a debt; to discharge it, he
must pay not with the same money, but the same sum.” One must not
imagine that the process of translation can avoid a certain degree of
interpretation by the translator.
Ten Different Directions of Pulling a
Text
• (1) The individual style or idiolect of the SL author. When should it be
(a) preserved, (b) normalised?
• (2) The conventional grammatical and lexical usage for this type of
text, depending on the topic and the situation.
• (3) Content items referring specifically to the SL, or third language (i.e,
not SL or TL) cultures.
• (4) The typical format of a text in a book, periodical, newspaper, etc.,
as influenced by tradition at the time.
• (5) The expectations of the putative readership, bearing in mind their
estimated knowledge of the topic and the style of language they use,
expressed in terms of the largest common factor, since one should
not translate down (or up) to the readership,
• (6), (7), (8) As for 2,3 and 4 respectively, but related to the TL,
• (9) What is being described or reported, ascertained or verified (the
referential truth), where possible independently of the SL text and the
expectations of the readership.
(10) The views and prejudices of the translator, which may be personal
and subjective, or may be social and cultural, involving the translator's
'group loyalty factor*, which may reflect the national, political, ethnic,
religious, social class, sex, etc. assumptions of the translator.
• Semantic and Pragmatic meaning ( when it is used how the
understand the context)
Purpose of Translation
• Translation is concerned with moral and with factual truth. This truth
can be effectively rendered only if it is grasped by the reader, and that
is the purpose and the end of translation. Should it be grasped readily,
or only after some effort? That is a problem of means and occasions.
• Principle of Similar response
Qualities of a Translator
The translator should:
1 understand the subject matter of the original
2 be familiar with both languages involved;
3 not translate word for word
4 follow common usage as much as possible
5 use a pleasing style.
Kinds Of Translation
• Intra-lingual Translation (Rewording) – NdIdjdka;r mßj¾;kh
• Inter-lingual Translation (Translation Proper) (Translation)
wka;¾NdId mßj¾;kh
• Inter- Semiotic Translation (Transmutation) (Paintings) wka;¾ix{dk
mßj¾;kh
Differences in Translation
Differences in translations can generally be
accounted for by three basic factors in
translating:
(1) the nature of the message,
(2) the purpose or purposes of the author and, by
proxy, of the translator,
(3) the type of audience.
(EUGENE NIDA)
the nature of the message,
• Messages differ primarily in the degree to which content
or form is the dominant consideration. Of course, the
content of a message can never be completely
abstracted from the form, and form is nothing apart
from content; but in some messages the content is of
primary consideration, and in others the form must be
given a higher priority.
• In poetry there is obviously a greater focus of attention
upon formal elements than one normally finds in prose.
Not that content is necessarily sacrificed in translation
of a poem, but the content is necessarily constricted
into certain formal molds. Only rarely can one reproduce
the purpose or purposes of the author and, by proxy,
of the translator,
• The particular purposes of the translator are also important factors in dictating the
type of translation. Of course, it is assumed that the translator has purposes
generally similar to, or at least compatible with, those of the original author, but
this is not necessarily so.
• A translator’s purposes may involve much more than information. He may, for
example, want to suggest a particular type of behaviour by means of a translation.
Under such circumstances he is likely to aim at full intelligibility, and to make
certain minor adjustments in detail so that the reader may understand the full
implications of the message for his own circumstances.
• Ex; On a similar basis, “white as snow” may be rendered as “white as egret feathers,” if the
people of the receptor language are not acquainted with snow but speak of anything very white by
this phrase.
• Purpose can be two fold as, aesthetic experience and knowledge. In
order to the purpose of translation translator should select his
translation method either literary translation or non-literary translation.
• Literary translation depends on principle of similar response.
• A translation should affect us in the same way as the original may be
supposed to have affected its first hearers.” (Matthew Arnold)
the type of audience.
• one must also consider the extent to which prospective audiences differ both in decoding ability
and in potential interest.
• Decoding ability in any language involves at least four principal levels:
(1) the capacity of children, whose vocabulary and cultural experience are limited;
(2) the double-standard capacity of new literates, who can decode oral messages with facility but
whose ability to decode written messages is limited;
(3) the capacity of the average literate adult, who can handle both oral and written messages with
relative ease;
(4) the unusually high capacity of specialists (doctors, theologians, philosophers, scientists, etc.),
when they are decoding messages within their own area of specialization. Obviously a translation
designed for children cannot be the same as one prepared for specialists, nor can a translation for
children be the same as one for a newly literate adult.
• Prospective audiences differ not only in decoding ability, but perhaps even more
in their interests. For example, a translation designed to stimulate reading for
pleasure will be quite different from one intended for a person anxious to learn
how to assemble a complicated machine. Moreover, a translator of African myths
for persons who simply want to satisfy their curiosity about strange peoples and
places will produce a different piece of work from one who renders these same
myths in a form acceptable to linguists, who are more interested in the linguistic
structure underlying the translation than in cultural novelty.
Basic orientations of Translation
• Since “there are, properly speaking, no such things as identical equivalents” one
must in translating seek to find the closest possible equivalent. However, there are
fundamentally two different types of equivalence: one which may be called formal
and another which is primarily dynamic.
Formal Equivalence
• Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and
content. In such a translation one is concerned with such correspondences as
poetry to poetry, sentence to sentence, and concept to concept. Viewed from this
formal orientation, one is concerned that the message in the receptor language
should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language.
This means, for example, that the message in the receptor culture is constantly
compared with the message in the source culture to determine standards of
accuracy and correctness.
• The type of translation which most completely typifies this structural equivalence
might be called a “gloss translation,” in which the translator attempts to reproduce
as literally and meaningfully as possible the form and content of the original.
• Such a translation would require numerous footnotes in order to make the text
fully comprehensible.
• In doing so, an F-E translation attempts to reproduce several formal
elements, including: (1) grammatical units, (2) consistency in word
usage, and (3) meanings in terms of the source context. The
reproduction of grammatical units may consist in: (a) translating
nouns by nouns, verbs by verbs, etc.; (b) keeping all phrases and
sentences intact (i.e. not splitting up and readjusting the units); and (c)
preserving all formal indicators, e.g. marks of punctuation, paragraph
breaks, and poetic indentation.
Dynamic Equivalence
• In contrast, a translation which attempts to produce a dynamic
rather than a formal equivalence is based upon “the principle of
equivalent effect” (Rieu and Phillips 1954). In such a translation
one is not so concerned with matching the receptor-language
message with the source-language message, but with the
dynamic relationship, that the relationship between receptor and
message should be substantially the same as that which existed
between the original receptors and the message. A translation of
dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness of
expression, and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior
relevant within the context of his own culture; it does not insist
that he understand the cultural patterns of the source-language
context in order to comprehend the message.
• In contrast with formal-equivalence translations others are oriented toward
dynamic equivalence. In such a translation the focus of attention is directed, not so
much toward the source message, as toward the receptor response. A dynamic-
equivalence (or D-E) translation may be described as one concerning which a
bilingual and bicultural person can justifiably say, “That is just the way we would
say it.” It is important to realize, however, that a D-E translation is not merely
another message which is more or less similar to that of the source. It is a
translation, and as such must clearly reflect the meaning and intent of the source.
One way of defining a D-E translation is to describe it as “the closest natural
equivalent to the source-language message.” This type of definition contains three
essential terms: (1) equivalent, which points toward the source-language message,
(2) natural, which points toward the receptor language, and (3) closest, which
binds the two orientations together on the basis of the highest degree of
approximation.
Linguistic and Cultural Distance
• translation may involve comparatively closely related languages and
cultures
• the languages may not be related, even though the cultures are closely
parallel
• translation may involve not only differences of linguistic affiliation
but also highly diverse cultures
Good translation
• “one which fulfills the same purpose in the new language as the original
did in the language in which it was written.”
• translations must also convey the “spirit and manner” of the original
(Campbell 1789:445 ff.).
• “One can hope to make the translation exact only in spirit, not in letter.”
• “The best translation is not one that keeps forever before the reader’s
mind the fact that this is a translation, not an original English
composition, but one that makes the reader forget that it is a translation
at all and makes him feel that he is looking into the ancient writer’s mind,
as he would into that of a contemporary. This is, indeed, no light matter
to undertake or to execute, but it is, nevertheless, the task of any serious
translator.”
(Goodspeed 1945)
• “The test of a real translation is that it should not read like translation at all.” His
second principle of translating reenforces the first, namely a translation into
English should avoid “translator’s English.”
([Link] 1953)
• A translation should affect us in the same way as the original may be supposed to
have affected its first hearers.”
(Matthew Arnold)
• insists that a translation should be “read with the same interest and enjoyment
which a reading of the original would have afforded.”
[Link] (1957:5)
Good Translator
1. He must understand the original word thematically and stylistically”;
2. he must overcome the differences between the two linguistic
structures”;
3. he must reconstruct the stylistic structures of the original work in his
translation.”
• If a translation is to meet the four basic requirements of
(1) making sense,
(2) conveying the spirit and manner of the original,
(3) having a natural and easy form of expression,
(4) producing a similar response, it is obvious that at certain points the
conflict between content and form (or meaning and manner) will be
acute, and that one or the other must give way.
Degraded Translation
• Over Translation
• Under Translation
• Mistranslation
