Docsity
Docsity

Prepara i tuoi esami
Prepara i tuoi esami

Studia grazie alle numerose risorse presenti su Docsity


Ottieni i punti per scaricare
Ottieni i punti per scaricare

Guadagna punti aiutando altri studenti oppure acquistali con un piano Premium


Guide e consigli
Guide e consigli


Introducing translation studies: Theories and Applications By Jeremy Munday, Appunti di Lingua Inglese

Riassunto completo manuale Introducing translation studies: Theories and Applications By Jeremy Munday per esame Lingua e Traduzione Inglese 3 (CdL L12) e Lingua e Traduzione Inglese 2 CdL L11).

Tipologia: Appunti

2021/2022

In vendita dal 06/10/2022

vulpus.vulpis
vulpus.vulpis 🇮🇹

4.7

(50)

68 documenti

1 / 42

Toggle sidebar

Questa pagina non è visibile nell’anteprima

Non perderti parti importanti!

bg1
1
Introducing translation studies: Theories and Applications By Jeremy Munday
Chapter 1 Main issues of Translation Studies
The term translation had been first attested in 1340 and derived from the Latin translation (‘transporting’).
Nowadays, the term has assumed several meanings:
1. The general subject field or phenomenon.
2. The final product ‘the text that has been translated’.
3. The process of producing the translation.
The core elements of translation that most scholars and professionals agree upon include:
1. Written text.
2. Transfer or mediation.
3. From one language to another.
The translation of a written text deals with the transfer or mediation of written texts; a major distinction
must be made indeed between written translation and oral translation. To be clear, translation (implies a
written text) and interpreting (oral text) differ significantly.
In interpreting:
1. The source language (original) text is presented only once and cannot be reviewed or replayed.
2. The target language (“translated”) text is produced under time pressure with little, if any, a chance
for correction and revision.
The process of translation between two different languages involves the changing of an original written
text (called the source text, ST) in the original verbal language (the source language, SL) into a written text
(the target text, TT) in a different verbal language (the target language, TL). However, may happen that
there is no clearly defined source text.
The traditional ST-TT configuration is the most prototypical of ‘interlingual translation’, as underlined by
Jakobson; according to him, there are three main categories:
1. Intralingual translation: also called ‘rewording’, it’s an interpretation of verbal signs employing
other signs of the same language (e.g., summarizing a text, rewriting it, rephrasing or paraphrasing,
etc.).
2. Interlingual translation: ‘translation proper’, it’s an interpretation of verbal signs employing some
other language.
3. Intersemiotic translation: ‘transmutation’, it’s an interpretation of verbal signs employing signs of
non-verbal sign systems (e.g., from an oral speech in American English to American Signs Language
or into a movie, painting, etc.).
The traditional focus of Translation Studies has been investigated through the years by many scholars and
researchers, leading to the creation of numerous and different definitions depending on the culture and
the time the authors had disclosed them.
Some authors have paid attention to how translation (i.e., the process or the activity) should be carried out.
Others have concentrated on what translation should be and on its result: the product.
This multiplicity of perspectives, governed by culture, purpose, language pair, and genre, makes a single or
common definition of translation difficult. So, translation can be defined as the process or the product of
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12
pf13
pf14
pf15
pf16
pf17
pf18
pf19
pf1a
pf1b
pf1c
pf1d
pf1e
pf1f
pf20
pf21
pf22
pf23
pf24
pf25
pf26
pf27
pf28
pf29
pf2a

Anteprima parziale del testo

Scarica Introducing translation studies: Theories and Applications By Jeremy Munday e più Appunti in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity!

Introducing translation studies: Theories and Applications By Jeremy Munday

Chapter 1 Main issues of Translation Studies

The term translation had been first attested in 1340 and derived from the Latin translation (‘transporting’). Nowadays, the term has assumed several meanings:

  1. The general subject field or phenomenon.
  2. The final product – ‘the text that has been translated’. 3. The process of producing the translation. The core elements of translation that most scholars and professionals agree upon include:
  3. Written text.
  4. Transfer or mediation.
  5. From one language to another. The translation of a written text deals with the transfer or mediation of written texts; a major distinction must be made indeed between written translation and oral translation. To be clear, translation (implies a written text) and interpreting (oral text) differ significantly. In interpreting:
  6. The source language (original) text is presented only once and cannot be reviewed or replayed.
  7. The target language (“translated”) text is produced under time pressure with little, if any, a chance for correction and revision. The process of translation between two different languages involves the changing of an original written text (called the source text, ST ) in the original verbal language (the source language, SL ) into a written text (the target text, TT ) in a different verbal language (the target language, TL ). However, may happen that there is no clearly defined source text. The traditional ST-TT configuration is the most prototypical of ‘interlingual translation’, as underlined by Jakobson ; according to him, there are three main categories :
  8. Intralingual translation: also called ‘rewording’, it’s an interpretation of verbal signs employing other signs of the same language (e.g., summarizing a text, rewriting it, rephrasing or paraphrasing, etc.).
  9. Interlingual translation: ‘translation proper’, it’s an interpretation of verbal signs employing some other language.
  10. Intersemiotic translation: ‘transmutation’, it’s an interpretation of verbal signs employing signs of non-verbal sign systems (e.g., from an oral speech in American English to American Signs Language or into a movie, painting, etc.). The traditional focus of Translation Studies has been investigated through the years by many scholars and researchers, leading to the creation of numerous and different definitions depending on the culture and the time the authors had disclosed them. Some authors have paid attention to how translation (i.e., the process or the activity) should be carried out. Others have concentrated on what translation should be and on its result: the product. This multiplicity of perspectives, governed by culture, purpose, language pair, and genre, makes a single or common definition of translation difficult. So, translation can be defined as the process or the product of

transforming a written text from one language to another which generally requires a significant degree of resemblance or correspondence to the source text. Based on this new definition, a fourth component is added to the three core elements of translation: a significant degree of resemblance or correspondence between the ST and the TT, so that the TT can be considered a translation, even though it's extremely difficult to define it. A perfect equivalence between two texts is rarely reached; languages differ significantly and linguistic structures, at the different linguistic levels (semantic, syntactic, pragmatic) considerably vary cross- linguistically, which makes perfect equivalence an idealistic notion. Due to its complexity, equivalence involves different layers of meaning , as different types of equivalence can characterize the relationship between a ST and a TT e.g., meaning (semantic equivalence), effect (pragmatic equivalence), or function (functional equivalence). A translation may aim for equivalence at one particular level while sacrificing equivalence at other levels. About the notion of equivalence:

  1. In many cases, emphasis is placed on functional equivalence (so that the ST and the TT have the same function, as in a newspaper article).
  2. The first activity in translation, reading, is a complex, interactive, and personal process between the information supplied by the text (the new one) and what the reader/translator brings to the text (known information), what they already know and based on which they understand the text.
  3. The readers of the ST envisioned by the writer , the ST writer’s prospective target audience, are not the same as those reading the translation (the readers of the TT) because the communication is mediated by the translator. 4. General agreement among scholars on the fact that perfect equivalence, even a functional one, appears to be little more than a theoretical goal.
  4. If perfect equivalence is possible, translation can only be about some degree of equivalence, some type or degree of resemblance or correspondence. The process or the product of transforming written text(s) from one language to another generally requires a (necessary) degree of resemblance or correspondence concerning the source text. Plus, different text types and genres require different degrees of equivalence and what is translatable can also vary across languages and cultures. The question of whether translation from one language into another is possible at all, or in what sense or to what degree it is possible. Most discussions appeal to a conception of translation as an integral representation of an existing text across languages, which typically assumes a notion of relevant resemblance between the two texts. If the translation is meant in a broader sense , as the condition that enables communication, as the cognitive processing of what is being communicated - translatability tends to be more inclusive. In absolute terms, these concepts are inapplicable:
  5. Full translatability: integral reproduction of a text’s full signification, might be possible only in the case of artificial formal languages, even if it’s difficult to achieve an agreement about what full signification consists of.
  6. Full untranslatability: would be beyond words, as it would imply the impossibility of communication. It’s required to say that what is communicated in one language cannot be communicated in another one.

Translatability then is a potential that characterizes the original text, and the translation develops that potential by interpreting it into language adding or enhancing something in the context. About the etymology of the term ‘translation’:

  1. English ‘translation’ was firstly attested in Middle English from the Old French ‘translat-‘ or the Latin transferre ‘carried across’.
  2. Italian ‘traduzione’ from Latin traductio - onis ‘trasferimento’, or from traducere ‘trasportare, trasferire’.
  3. Arabic tarjama ‘biography’.
  4. Chinese fan yi ‘turning over’. Translation in history Translation has always had a major role in mediating knowledge across time, cultures, and languages. As an academic subject , the study of translation began in the second half of the 20th^ century. Academics started to develop debates about translation, advancing theories and methods of text interpretation and analysis for translation purposes. The founder of Translational Studies is the US scholar James Holmes with his 1988 paper “The Name and Nature of Translational Studies”, which defined the emerging discipline as a field concerned with the complex problems clustered around the phenomenon of translating and translations. Since the 1980s, translation practice and research have developed enormously so much so a very prolific international discussion established TS as an independent discipline. In 2016, Munday affirmed that translation prominence is due to the tension between practice and theory:
  5. The practical side of professional translating.
  6. The more abstract research activity of the academic field. The translation practice has increased due to:
  7. A remarkable increase in the demand for translation globally: a vast expansion in specialized translation programs, both undergraduate and postgraduate (e.g., many courses in translation, general and specific, have spread across universities to train future professionals).
  8. An increasing number of professionals: national and international organizations such as the International Federation of Translators (FIT, 1953; includes national associations of translators), European Society for Translation Studies (EST, 1992), European Association for Studies in Screen Translation (ESIST, 1995) and Associazione Italiana Traduttori e Interpreti (AITI, 1950). To the variety of translation-related themes, the increasing number of countries, the being a field of academic interest, and the proliferation, since the 1990s, of national and international conferences, TS is now one of the most active and dynamic areas of scientific research. Also, the demand for theoretical tools has considerably grown. Even though the translation practice is long-established, its conceptualization as a discipline began in the late 20th^ century. The first writings on translation date back to the I century BC thanks to roman authors like Cicero and Horace. At that time, translation was crucial to disseminate key cultural and religious texts (e.g., one of the first books to be ever translated was the Bible from Greek into Latin in the IV century BC). Before TS, translation was so regarded as an activity of foreign language learning that until the 1960s, ‘grammar-translation’ was the dominant approach. The translation was used to practice rules with a series

of unconnected and artificially constructed sentences as examples of the rules using also mechanical learning, by memorization, of grammatical rules and structures of foreign languages. The translation was so considered a ‘secondary’ status of translation, as a simple exercise in language teaching and learning. In the 1960s and 1970s, it was developed a (new) ‘communicative’ approach to language teaching and learning. It promotes ‘authentic’ language-learning conditions in the classroom, some ‘real’ communicative situations, and encourages the use of the foreign language (vs student’s native language). This approach changed the role of translation in educational contexts ; it’s no longer used as an activity in language learning at school, but it’s still used in higher-level and university language courses in comparative literature due to activity based on the reading and the comparison of literary works in translation. In those same years, translation also became the research subject of Contrastive Linguistics (CL). CL is the study of two languages in contrast to identifying general and specific differences between them. In contrastive research, translation involves the use of parallel texts to compare phenomena in two languages. CL also influenced the more linguistic perspectives on translation and contributed to the development of linguistic-based models in TS; it led to a more systematic and linguistic-oriented study of translation and a key terminology for contrastive description across language pairs (e.g., Stylystique compare du français et de d’anglais, 1958, Vinay and darbelnet). The formal recognition of translation as a scientific field also dates back to the 1960s, becoming more prominent in four ways:

  1. Expansion in specialized translating and interpretating programs.
  2. Proliferation of conferences, books and journals on translation.
  3. Demand for general and analytical instruments.
  4. International organizations. The word ‘science’ was first used in the title of the book “Toward a Science of Translating”, 1964 by Eugene Nida but the name of the discipline remained to be determined, even because another potential candidate was the term ‘translatology’ (traduttologia). A fundamental contribution to the development of TS as a distinct discipline and also to the selection of a name was given by the paper “The name and nature of translation studies” written in 1988 by James Holmes. In this text, considered the founding statement of the field, Holmes put forward a framework of TS, describing what the subject covered and also what fell into its framework by providing a map of TS which was visually represented by Gideon Toury in 1995. The emerging discipline was thus concerned with “the complex of problems clustered around the phenomenon of translating and translations”.

The Applied branch instead, concerns applications to the practice of translation and it’s divided into:

  1. Translation Training: teaching methods, testing techniques.
  2. Translational Aids: dictionaries and grammars.
  3. Translation Criticism: evaluation of translation. These divisions in the map are in many ways artificial, as Holmes himself pointed out that these three areas influence one another. The applied side of TS research was underdeveloped due to Holmes’ research interests, even though his framework offered clarification and a division between the various areas of TS. CAT tools ( computer-aided/assisted translation tools): different types of computer software which help human translators in their activity. Translation memories (TMs) match the ST with terminology and textual segments previously translated and they suggest their use for another translation; the translator can decide whether or not to use the previously translated elements as they are, or to edit them or use them partially. Machine translation (MT) is the translation produced by a software program without the intervention of a human translator; usually, the TT produced is not usable in its raw form: it has to be revised. Post-editing: the process of editing and revising the output of machine translation by humans. In the Van Doorslaer map (2007), the academic distinguished between:
  4. Translation: looks at the act of translating. It’s subdivided into: a. Lingual mode. b. Media.

c. Mode. d. Field.

  1. Translation Studies, subdivided into: a. Approaches. b. Theories. c. Research methods. d. Applied translation studies.

Chapter 2 Translation Theory before the 20th^ century

The ‘literal’ vs ‘free’ debate The literal and free debate on the studying of translation has involved translators and scholars for over 2,000 years, starting with roman authors in the I century BC (e.g., in the West, the distinction between ‘word-for-word or literal' and ‘sense-for-sense' or `free' translation goes back to Cicero and St Jerome). The debate has strongly influenced the theories about translation emerging in the second half of the 20th century and given the importance of Classica's authors of ancient Greece and Rome, it formed the basis of key writings on translation for nearly two thousand years. The Roman rhetorician and politician Cicero (106-43 BC) outlined his approach to the translation of Greek orators' speeches in De Optimo Genere oratorum (46 BC), affirming so his approach in favor of nonliteral translation. A similar critical position towards word-for-word translation was associated with Roman poet Horace ; in a short passage from his Ars Poetica (20 BC): he underlines the goal of producing an aesthetically pleasing and creative poetic text in the TL. The attitude of these two Roman authors had a great influence on the following centuries. St. Jerome (347-420 AD), the most famous of all Western translators, cites the authority of Cicero's approach to justifying his Latin revision and translation of the Christian Bible (later known as the Latin Vulgate) in the 4th century. He revised and corrected earlier Latin translations of the Greek New Testament but, for the Old Testament, he decided to return to the original Hebrew (not Greek). His decision was rather controversial at that time, even because the Greek translation of the Old Testament from original Hebrew, the "Septuagint”, was already in use among Christians and was widely regarded as the Bible's first major translation in Western culture. Influenced by Roman authors Jerome described his translation approach in De Optimo Genere interpretandi (395) responding to public criticism of incorrect' translation. Jerome’s statement is regarded as the first and clearest expression of the literal and free poles in Western translation theory. Thus, like Cicero and Horace, Jerome rejected and criticized the word-for-word approach, and his statement is regarded as the first claim-making distinction between different text types (e.g., a letter vs the Bible: sense-for-sense approach vs a literal method that paid closer attention to the words, syntax, and ideas of the original). Regarding Chinese Translation of Buddhist Sutras from Sanskrit, it can be divided into three phases:

  1. First phase: word for word renderings. They believed that the sacred words of the Enlightened should not be changed.
  2. Second phase: swing to Yiyi (free translation).
  3. Third phase: attention should be paid to the style of the original text.

In 17th^ century in England, apart from the Bible, translation into English was almost exclusively confined to verse renderings of Greek and Latin classics but, as to conceptualization and meaning assigned to translating was valued as an exercise in creativity and novelty so some translations started to be extremely free. A supporter of this approach was the English poet and essayist Abraham Cowley (1618-1667). In his preface to Pindaric Odes (1640), he attacks poetry that is “converted faithfully and word for word into French or Italian prose” implying though a loss of beauty in translation. To avoid this lack of beauty, he proposed the term ‘imitation’ to support a very free method of translating based on the imitation and the reproduction of the ‘spirit’ of the ST. A different but very influential impact on translation theory and practice was provided by the English poet and translator John Dryden (1631-1700). In the preface to his translation of Ovid’s Epistles (1680), he developed a translation into three categories:

1. Metaphrase: “word by word and line by line” translation (corresponds to literal translation). Extremely **criticized by the author.

  1. Paraphrase:** “translation with latitude, where the author is kept in view by the translator, so as never to be lost, but his words are not strictly followed as his sense” (faithful or sense-for-sense translation). It was suggested by the poet himself.
  2. Imitation: “forsaking” both words and sense (free translation or adaptation). Rejected. In Dryden’s preface to his translation of Virgil’s Aeneid (1697), the poet changed his stance showing a shift towards literal translation, or between literal translation and paraphrasing, with also a tendency towards imitation. The French poet and translator Étienne Dolet (1509-1546), author of la manière de bien traduire d’une angue eu autre (1540), developed five prescriptive principles:
  3. The translator must perfectly understand the sense and material of the original author, although he should feel free to clarify obscurities.
  4. The translator should have a perfect knowledge of both SL and TL, so as not to lessen the majesty of the language.
  5. The translator should avoid word-for-word renderings.
  6. The translator should avoid Latinate and unusual forms.
  7. The translator should assemble and liaise words eloquently to avoid clumsiness. Dolet’s main concern was to reproduce the ST sense and to avoid literal translation, due also to him being a supporter of sense-for-sense or free approach. However, he supported contextualization, defined as the stress on producing an eloquent and natural TL form to root in:
  8. The Humanist enthusiasm for the rediscovered Classics.
  9. The political desire to reinforce the structure and independence of vernacular languages (French for Dolet), as opposed to elitist Latin. Regarding the English counterpart, the first comprehensive and systematic study of translation was “Essay on the principle of translation” (1790) by Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813). Unlike Dryden, who was

more ST-author-oriented, for Tytler a good translation had to be TL-reader-oriented, as he suggested in his three general laws:

  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 as that of the original.
  3. The translation should have all the ease of the original composition. To summarize, Tytler profiled the translator in TS as a character able to:
  4. Have a perfect knowledge of the original.
  5. Be competent in the subject.
  6. Offer a faithful transfer of the sense and meaning.
  7. (The ST author’s style) identify the true character of this style.
  8. Have the ability and correct taste to recreate it in the TL. These laws, in his model, represent the two widely different opinions about translation: they can be seen as the poles of the faithfulness of content and form and, in TS, reformulations of the sense-for-sense and word-for-word distinction. A translator influenced by Tytler was Yan Fu (1854-1921). He stated that translation has three principles:
  9. Xìn: fidelity/faithfulness.
  10. Dà: fluency/comprehensibility.
  11. Yǎ: elegance. An important contribution to the development of translation theory before the establishment of TS as a scholarly discipline (in the late 20th^ century) was given by the seminal lecture “Uber die verschiedenen Methoden des Ubersetzens” (On the different methods of translating, 1813) by the German philosopher Friederich Schleiermacher (1768-1834). In this work, the author outdrew:
  12. The hermeneutic and Romantic approach to the interpretation of texts (emphasis on the individual’s inner feeling and understanding).
  13. The distinction between two different types of a translator working on two different types of text (i.e., Dolmetscher: commercial texts and Übersetzer: scholarly and artistic texts). Moving beyond the strict issues of word-for-word and sense-for-sense, Schleiermacher started questioning how to bring the ST writer and the TT reader together according to what he believed to be the only true oaths for the true translator (the goal of translation itself):
  14. The translator leaves the writer at peace as much as possible and moves the reader toward him (foreignization). He preferred this strategy, even though his method was not focused on naturalizing the text, bringing the foreign text in line with the typical pattern of the TL, but on “giving the reader, though the translation, the impression he would have received as a German reading the work in the original language.”
  15. The translator leaves the reader in peace as much as possible and moves the writer toward him (domestication). So, the translator is a TL expert who can help the less competent TL reader to appreciate the ST thanks to the adoption of an ‘alienating’, ‘foreignizing’ method of translation. This approach emphasizes the value of the foreign, by ‘adapting’ Tl word usage to ensure faithfulness to the ST (sense, sound, importing ST foreign concepts, linguistic features, and culture into the TL).

Jakobson's work focused on the analysis of meaning and equivalence by focusing on differences in the structure and vocabulary or terminology of languages, not on the abstract (in)ability of one language to render a message into another verbal language. Any language can express the semantic meaning of a word or structure without a necessary one-to-one correspondence between words or structures. Translatability thus becomes a question of the degree of:

**1. Semantic similarity.

  1. Semantic values associated with concepts or messages.** Thanks to this, equivalence is possible despite cross-linguistic differences, which are the obligatory grammatical and lexical forms that can express equivalent meaning. So, for Jakobson, concepts can be expressed interlingually despite grammatical and lexical differences. The ‘after Jakobson’ was characterized by Eugene Nida, a US linguist, and translator who suddenly became one of the most important figures in the field, due to his new ‘scientific’ approach and his influence on the development of TS as an academic field. In fact, in the ‘60s, questions of meaning, equivalence, and translatability became a constant theme of TS, and thanks to Nida’s work (especially his book “Toward a Science of Translating”, 1964) translation was formally recognized as a science (it was also the first time that the term ‘science’ was used om the title of a book about translation). Nida's theory of translation was based (as usual in the early phase of TS), on his practical work and translation practice (especially his translation of the Bible). In 1969, Nida and Charles Taber published the book “The Theory and Practice of Translation”. Nida exposed a very original approach to the analysis of the translation of the Holy Bible in both practice and theory, borrowing deliberately theoretical concepts and terminology from contemporary Linguistics (i.e., semantics and pragmatics). Particularly influential in his research was linguist Noam Chomsky with his theory of a universal generative-transformational grammar. Chomsky’s generative-transformational model was based on phrase-structure rules generating a deep structure transformed by transformational rules to produce a final surface structure. The most basic of such structures are the kernel sentences: simple, active, declarative sentences that require the minimum of transformation. Kernels are basic structural elements out of which language builds its elaborate surface structures. Nida and Taber claimed that all languages have between six and a dozen basic Kernel structures and agreed more on the level of Kernels than on the level of more elaborate structures. His model of structural relations provided the translator with a technique for decoding the ST and for encoding the TT, based on three stages:
  2. The analysis concerns the SUST and means examining the ST surface structure to understand the basic elements of the deep structure. Linguistic analysis of SUST surface structures, ex. functional classes: (usually) verbs for events, (usually) nouns for objects, (usually) adjectives and adverbs for qualities, quantities, manner, time, etc., (usually) prepositions and conjunctions for relations in sentences
  3. The transfer is translation proper, the basic elements of the deep structure are translated by
  4. Reconstructing these elements semantically and stylistically into the surface structure of the TT. Another aspect of his work regarded the nature of meaning.

Thanks to a new ‘scientific’ approach to the analysis of the meaning(s) of words in translation, influenced by semantics, he deviated from the old idea of meaning to adopt a functionalist perspective. This led to a new functional definition of meaning:

  1. The meaning of a word is context dependent.
  2. A word acquires meaning through the context in which it is used.
  3. Context is inevitably influenced by culture.
  4. Meaning is also culture dependent. According to Nida, there are different types of meaning:
  5. Linguistic meaning: depends on the relationship between different linguistic items and (contextual) structures. Being context-dependent, it can vary even in similar structural contexts. i.e., (possessive + noun) his house= he possesses a house ; his journey= he performs a journey; his kindness= kindness is a quality of him
  6. Referential meaning: the denotative ‘dictionary’ meaning. i.e., son= male child
  7. Emotive or connotative meaning: depends on the associations a word produces i.e., Don’t worry about that, son. Son shows love or affection or patronizing Eugene Nida’s focus on practice is aimed at developing translation tools and methods. His tripartite model of meaning with relevant techniques helped translators to understand the SUST by determining the meaning of different linguistic items, especially referential and connotative meaning, which techniques focus on analyzing the structure of words and differentiating similar words in related lexical fields. For instance:
  8. Hierarchical structuring: focus on distinguishing series of words according to their level (superordinate or hypernyms and related hyponyms).
  9. Componential analysis: focus on examining lexical differences between pairs of words by (a) identifying their specific semantic features and (b) comparing them to those of other words. He also provided techniques to understand the connotational meaning and to perform a semantic structure analysis, suggested showing translators and translation trainees that the meaning of semantically complex words is:
  10. Context-dependent.
  11. Varies.
  12. It’s conditioned by its context i.e., the analysis of the different senses of the polysemic 'spirit', including 'demon', 'angel', 'god', 'ethos', 'nature', 'alcohol', etc. according to their characteristics (human vs. non-human, good vs. bad, etc.). To show that 'spirit' does not always have a religious sense and even when it does (ex. 'Holy Spirit', Nida's theories develop from his work — Bible's translation), its connotative values vary depending on TL/TC. So, connotation (associations beyond referential meaning) depends on the language in use, and the way a word is used in the language. After working on meaning, he started investigating 'equivalence', providing two basic orientations in translation or two types of equivalence in the relation between the SL/ST and the TL/TT:

"Approaches to Translation" (1981) and "A Textbook of Translation" (1988), which presented two new concepts and terms:

  1. Communicative translation: attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original. It is oriented towards the TT reader and it respects the SL form but aims to reproduce the meaning with clarity, adhering to the TL norms. This sometimes implies a loss of semantic content, even causing the TT can be smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct, and more conventional than the ST. The goal of translation is to guarantee the accuracy of communication of the ST message in the TT.
  2. Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original. It is more oriented towards the ST author and it aims to be more faithful and loyal to their SL. The goal of translation is to guarantee the accuracy of the reproduction of the significance of ST due to accurate reproduction of the sense(s) expressed by the ST author and, sometimes, faithfulness/loyalty may mean replicating the ST’s language norms. Thus, sometimes, the TT can be more complex, detailed than the ST, and also potentially awkward to the TT reader, less natural, and intelligible. Newmark and Nida’s theories have both similarities and differences.
  3. Communicative translation (Newmark) is very similar to Dynamic equivalence (Nida): the emphasis is on the effect translation should try to re-create on the TT reader.
  4. Semantic translation (Newmark) to Formal equivalence (Nida): the emphasis is on the message itself, in both form and content. So, Newmark's 'semantic translation' can be seen as evolution of 'literal' or 'word-for-word' translation. It’s no longer interpreted as strict literal or word-for-word reproduction or transfer of the ST lexis and syntax, but greater importance is given to context and its influence on meaning. The role of the context- dependent meaning of words is crucial in interpreting and translating the ST author's message. Though Newmark clearly explains that 'communicative translation’ deviates from Nida's 'dynamic equivalence', he distances himself from the principle of equivalent effect considering it an 'illusion', especially if the context (space and time) of the ST is not the same as the context (space and time) of the TT. To support his theory, he mentioned in exemplum the translation of Classical authors (Greek orators' speeches), affirming that a modern translator (1980s), cannot hope or expect to produce the same effect on the reader of the (written) TT as the (oral) ST had on its listeners in ancient Greece. Werner Koller (1942-) was a German translation scholar strongly influenced by Nida’s theories. In 1979, he published the book "Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft" (Research into the science of translation), followed by papers discussing 'equivalence' in the 1980s and 1990s. His studies were particularly important in the development of 'äquivalenz' (equivalence), especially concerning the new but linked concept of 'korrespondenz' (correspondence):
  5. Correspondence: links the two languages involved in translation. It belongs to the field of Contrastive Linguistics, comparing two language systems to describe differences and similarities contrastively (e.g., identifying false friends and signs of morphological, lexical, and syntactic interference) knowledge of correspondences is indicative of competence in the foreign language.
  1. Equivalence: links the two texts. It relates to equivalent items in specific ST-TT pairs and contexts; knowledge of equivalences is indicative of translation competence. It requires a relationship between texts, determining what can be considered equivalent in translation; Koller highlighted five types of equivalence relations, constrained by (a) The ST and (b) the communicative conditions of the receiver: a. Denotative: equivalence of the extralinguistic content of a text. Focus on lexis and the identification of correspondences between lexical items. b. Connotative: equivalence concerning lexical and stylistic choices, especially between near synonyms. Focus on lexis, but in terms of the connotational values of lexical items in different languages, as regards formality (poetic, slang, etc.), social usage, geographical origin, stylistic effect (neutral, standard, archaic, old-fashioned), frequency of use, range (general, technical, specialized, etc.), evaluation, emotion, etc. c. Text-normative: equivalence related to text types as different kinds of texts behave in different ways. Focus on patterns of usage between languages in different communicative situations, as expressed in different text types. d. Pragmatic or communicative: equivalence oriented towards TT receiver (Nida's dynamic equivalence). Translation for a particular readership or receiver group, based on their specific communicative conditions. e. Formal: equivalence related to the ST form and aesthetics. Focus on the ST author's individual stylistic features (wordplay, metaphor, rhyme), using TL possibilities or creating new possibilities (creativity, new stylistic forms) to reproduce ST form. In this model, the types of equivalences are hierarchically ordered according to the needs of the communicative situation: 1. The translator first tries denotative equivalence.
  2. If it is inadequate, s/he will seek equivalence at a higher level — connotative, text-normative, pragmatic, and formal. The appropriate level of equivalence depends on different factors. e.g., existence or non-existence of a corresponding word with:
  3. The same denotative meaning (denotative equivalence).
  4. The same/similar connotative meaning (connotative e.).
  5. The same/similar usage in a specific text type (text-normative e.).
  6. The same/similar effect on the readership (pragmatic e.).
  7. The same or similar stylistic features (formal e.). Pym (2007) defined two types of equivalence and described how the rise of computer-assisted translator (CAT) tools has given a new twist to these types:
  8. Natural equivalence: where the focus is on identifying naturally occurring terms in the SL and TL (translation glossaries and term bases).
  9. Directional equivalence: where the focus is on analyzing and rendering the ST meaning in an equivalent form in the TT.

c. Whole - part. d. Part - another part. e. Negation of opposite. f. Active – passive. g. Rethinking of intervals and limits in space and time. h. Change of symbol.

  1. Equivalence: cases where languages describe the same situation with a different structure. It’s particularly useful in translating idioms and proverbs. E.g., like a bull in a china shop > come un elefante in una cristalleria.
  2. Adaption: changing the cultural reference when a situation is the source culture does not exist in the target culture. E.g., reference to the game of cricket in English > another sport. They observed other techniques still used in translation analysis but with different labels:
  3. Amplification: the TT uses longer syntactic structures.
  4. Economy: making the TT shorter.
  5. Loss gain and compensation: loss in extremely common in TS; it’s almost impossible to keep all the semantic nuances of the SL in the TL. The translator might compensate the loss by introducing a ‘gain’ at the same point or another point in the text.
  6. Explicitation: making implicit information in the ST explicit in the SS. This information may regard the grammatical, the cultural, the semantic and the idiomatic aspect.
  7. Generalization: using a more general term (hypernyms) in the TT. The seven main translation procedures are described as operating on three levels:
  8. The lexicon.
  9. The syntactic structure.
  10. The message. One important parameter described by Vinay and Darbelnet is the difference between:
  11. Servitude: obligatory transpositions and modulations due to a difference between the two language systems. It acknowledges translators’ agency.
  12. Option: non-obligatory changes that may be due to the translator’s style and preferences or to a change in emphasis. It is the translators’ main concern: the role of the translator is to choose from among the available options to express the nuances of the message. In Vinay and Darbelnet’s model, it is used the term unit of translation, the smallest segment that can be translated in isolation. Another term that can relate to the model, even though the academics had never used it, is ‘translation shift’. It refers to any linguistic changes occurring in translation. It is a very important term in TS metalanguage and originated in “A Linguistic Theory of Translation”, by Scottish linguist John Catford (1965). His approach is properly linguistic and contrastive , as he viewed the language as a system of communication which functionally operates in context and is based on continuous interaction between different levels and increasingly complex ranks. Catford not only analyzed language as a communication, operating functionally in context system and theorized the Translation Shift, he also made an important distinction (later to be developed by Koller) between:
  13. Formal correspondent: a general system-based concept between a pair of languages. Any TL category which can be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the same place in the economy of the

TL as the given. It links categories in two linguistic systems, it is a linguistic system-based concept and links a particular SL-TL pair.

  1. Textual equivalent: is tied to a particular ST-TT pair and specifically depends on text and context. It’s any TL text or portion of text which is observed on a particular occasion to be equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text. When the two concepts diverge, there is a translational shift. There are two kinds of shift:
  2. Level shift: something which is expressed by grammar in one language and lexis in another. E.g., Three tourists have been reported killed (lexis) > sarebbero stati uccisi tre turisti (grammar, conditional).
  3. Category shift: the use of a different category within the same linguistic level. It is subdivided into: a. Structural shifts: shift in a grammar structure. E.g., “I like jazz” → subj. pronoun + verb + subj “Mi piace il jazz” → indirect pronoun + verb + subj. b. Class shifts: shifts from one part of speech to another. c. Rank shifts: the translation equivalent in the TL is at a different rank to the SL. A rank is a hierarchical linguistic unit of sentence, clause, group, word and morpheme. d. Intra-system shifts: the translation involves a selection of non-corresponding term in the SL system (e.g., number and article system between English and French). The analysis of translation shifts has limits to what it can tell us about the actual cognitive process of translation, providing a more visible authorial presence in translating the original message by making the conscious and unconscious linguistic choices that appear in the TT. It is all visible in Munday’s “Style and Ideology in Translation: Latin American Writing in English” (2008); analyzing the style of the Latin-American literature’s translator Harriet de Onìs, Munday showed her tencendy to: manipulate paratextual features, standardize or neutralize dialect choices in dialogue, use a rich and varied literary lexicon and syntactic structures typical of condensed English style. Another model proposed is the interpretative one. It aims to explain translation as a three-stage process: 1. Reading and understanding using linguistic competence and world knowledge to grasp the sense of the ST.
  4. Deverbalization: cognitive processing of the interpreter, where transfer occurs through sense and not words.
  5. Re-expression: the TT is given form based on the deverbalized understanding of sense. This model, despite being quite similar to Nida’s, emphasizes the deverbalized cognitive process than the structural representation of semantic.