Translation Theories

Theories of translation are too often concerned with distinctions between literary and
nonliterary texts, between prose and poetry. But in order to understand the nature of translation,
the focus should not be on different types of discourse but on the processes and procedures
involved in any and all kinds of interlingual communication (Bell, 1987).
According to Newmark, translation theory is concerned mainly with determining
appropriate translation methods for the widest possible range of texts or text-categories. It also
provides a frame work of principles, restricted rules and hints for translating texts and criticizing
translations, a background for problem solving.
Instead of no theories of translation, there are a multiplicity of such theories of why,
when, and how to translate. One of the reasons for so many different views about translating is
that interlingual communication has been going on since the dawn of human history.
One reason for the great variety of translation theories and subtheories is the fact that the
processes of translating can be viewed from so many different perspectives: stylistics, author's
intent, diversity of languages, differences of corresponding cultures, problems of interpersonal
communication, changes in literary fashion, distinct kinds of content (e.g. mathematical theory
and lyric poetry), and the circumstances in which translations are to be used, e.g. read in the
tranquil setting of one's own living room, acted on the theatre stage, etc.
A theory should be a coherent and integrated set of principles for explaining a class of
phenomena. A satisfactory theory should help in the recognition of elements which have not been
recognized before. A theory should also provide a measure of predictability about the degree of
success to be expected from the use of certain principles, given the particular expectations of an
audience, the nature of the content, the amount of information carried by the form of the
discourse, and the circumstances of use.
Philological Theories
Philological theories rely upon philology as the study of the development of language,
and the classical literary studies. They are mainly concerned with the comparison of structures in
the native and foreign languages, especially the functional correspondence and the literary genres
in addition to stylistics and rhetoric.
Nida explicitly states: The philological theories of translation are, of course based on a
philological approach to literary analysis. They simply go one step further; in place of treating
the form in which the text was first composed, they deal with corresponding structures in the
source and receptor languages and attempt to evaluate their equivalences Philological
theories of translation are normally concerned with all kinds of stylistic features and rhetorical
devices. (Nida)
The philological perspective on translation in the Western World goes back ultimately to
some important observations by such persons as Cicero, Horace, Augustine, and Jerome, whose
principal concerns were the correct rendering of Greek texts into Latin.
Some of the most important early contributions to the philological aspects of translation
were made by Luther (1530), Etienne Dolet (1540), Cowley (1656), Dryden (1680), and Pope
(1715), but Luther's influence was probably the greatest in view of his having directly and
indirectly influenced so many Bible translations first in Western Europe and later in other parts
of the world.

Linguistic Theories
Linguistic theories of translation, according to Nida, are based on a comparison of the
Linguistic structures of the STs and TTs, rather than a comparison of literary genres and stylistic
features of the philological theories. Their development is due to two factors: first, the
application of the rapidly expanding linguistics, the scientific study of language, to several fields
such as cognitive anthropology, semiotics, pragmatics, and teaching translation/interpreting
skills; and second, the emergence of Machine Translation (MT) which has provided a significant
motivation for basing translation procedures on linguistic analysis as well as for a rigorous
description of SL and TL (Nida)
These theories are perhaps best represented by proponent figures, such as Eugene Nida,
Roger Bell and J.C. Catford.
According to Nida and Taber (1969:134) it is only a linguistic translation that can be
considered faithful, because it is one which only contains elements which can be directly
derived from the ST wording, avoiding any kind of explanatory interpolation or cultural
adjustment which can be justified on this basis.
Pertinent to linguistic theories is Newmarks binary classification of translation into
semantic and communicative. Communicative translation, Newmark states, attempts to
produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the original. 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. These two approaches can best be
illustrated in the following figure (Newmark):

The contribution of linguistics to translation is twofold: to apply the findings of

linguistics to the practice of translation, and to have a linguistic theory of translation, as opposed
to other theories such as the literary theory of translation. There are, however, differences among
linguistic theories, the principal of which, Nida maintains, lies in the extent to which the focus is
on surface structures or corresponding deep structures. Theories based on surface-structures
comparisons involve the use of elaborate sets of rules for matching corresponding structures,
whereas those based on deep-structures involve transformational analyses employed in teaching
the methods of translation.

Skopos theory or Skopostheory is an approach to translation which was developed in

Germany in the late 1970s and which reflects a general shift from predominantly LINGUISTIC
and rather formal translation theories to a more functionally and socioculturally oriented concept
of translation.
Translation is viewed not as a process of trans coding, but as a specific form of human
action. Like any other human action, translation has a purpose, and the word skopos, derived
from Greek aim, purpose, is used as the technical term for the purpose of a translation. Skopos
must be defined before translation can begin; in highlighting skopos, the theory adopts a
prospective attitude to translation, as opposed to the retrospective attitude adopted in theories
which focus on prescriptions derived from the source text. In addition to its purpose, any action
has an outcome. The outcome of translational action is a translatum, a particular variety of
target text.
In skopos theory, it is important to know 1) why a source text is to be translated and 2)
what function of the target text will be.
The advantage of the skopos theory is that it allows the possibility of the same text being
translated in different ways according to *the purpose of the TT and * the commission which is
given to the translator.
Sociolinguistic Theories
These theories endeavour to link translation to communicative theory and information
theory, with special emphasis on the receptors role in the translation process. They do not
completely overlook language structures, instead they deal with it at a higher level in accordance
to their functions in the communicative process. These structures may involve rhetorical devices
or figures of speech such as simile, metaphor, irony, hyperbole, etc., in both literary and nonliterary texts. These theories require the translator exhibit language competence as well as
language performance.
The communicative theory
The volume From One Language to Another (de Waard and Nida, 1986) reflects the
importance of a number of basic elements in communication theory, namely, source, message,
receptor, feedback, noise, setting, and medium. It also treats the processes of encoding and
decoding of the original communication and compares these with the more complex series in the
translation process.
Linguists working in the field of sociolinguistics, e.g. Labov (1972), Hymes (1974), and
Gumperz (1982), have made particularly important contributions to understanding principles of
translating which focus upon various processes in communication. This relation between
sociolinguistics and translation is a very natural one, since sociolinguists deal primarily with
language as it is used by society in communicating. The different ways in which societies
employ language in interpersonal relations are crucial for anyone concerned with translating.
Any approach to translating based on communication theory must give considerable
attention to the paralinguistic (paralanguage non-verbal elements in speech such as intonation,
prosody, pitch, volume, that may affect the meaning of the utterance) and extralinguistic (aspects
of communication used in addition to speech: facial expressions, posture, loudness of voice, etc.)
features of oral and written messages.

The theory of communication has also introduced different perspectives and has
emphasized such factors as means of communication, types of messages, receptors, noise, and
circumstances of communication.
The sociosemiotic theory
The central focus in a sociosemiotic perspective on translation is the multiplicity of codes
involved in any act of verbal communication.
Words never occur without some added paralinguistic or extralinguistic features. And
when people listen to a speaker, they not only take in the verbal message, but on the basis of
background information and various extralinguistic codes, they make judgments about a
speaker's sincerity, commitment to truth, breadth of learning, specialized knowledge, ethnic
background, concern for other people, and personal attractiveness.
These types of codes are always present in one way or another, whether in oral or written
communication, but there are certain other accompanying codes which are optional and to which
the verbal message must adjust in varying ways, e.g. the action in a drama, the music of a song,
and the multiple visual and auditory features of a multimedia essay. These optional codes often
become the dominant factors in a translation, especially when lip synchronization is required in
television films.
The problem of multiple codes and their relation to the social setting of communication
have been helpfully treated by a number of persons, e.g. Eco (1976), Krampen (1979), Merrell
(1979), and Robinson (1985). The beginning of a sociosemiotic approach to translating has been
undertaken by de Waard and Nida (1986) and by Toury (1980), but a good deal more must be
done to understand the precise manner in which the language code relates to other behavioral
codes.