Translation; Definition, history,

purposes,
 WHAT IS
TRANSLATION?
 WHAT IS TRANSLATION?

Translation – came from the Latin

“translatio” (to carry across), an
adaptation from the Greek’s concept of
“metaphrasis” (word-for-word or literal)
vs. “paraphrasis” (saying in other word).
In linguistic approach, these terms are
tantamount to formal equivalence vs.
dynamic equivalence.
 WHAT IS TRANSLATION?

 translation refers to the process of giving target

language equivalent to the language of origin.
 WHAT IS TRANSLATION?

In usage, verbatim translation is imperfect for words

can carry multiple meaning but both are considered as
ideals and possible approaches in the process of
translation.
 HISTORY OF
TRANSLATION
BASED ON
THEORIES
 Western Theory

 Translation practice in 1600 – 1700, translation

theorists focused more on “equivalents” or language
meaning counterpart to retain the essence and
beauty of the original literature.

 Prior to the proliferation of English literature and the

different movements or school of thoughts, Romans
already veered away from “verbum pro verbo” (word
for word) because what is beautiful in one language
can be barbarous in the target language.
 Western Theory

 With the old philosophers’ (Horace, Cicero, Terence, etc.)

attempts to translate literature without causing injury the
context, it was discovered that there are words that failed to
meet the standards of the principles of equivalence. Thus,
“untranslatable” words were bridged with “loanwords” to
meet the grammatical rules governing the western literary
world and abiding the “sememe” or the intended meaning.
 Western Theory

 In the 13th century, a translation movement called

Bilingualism started propagating the knowledge of both
languages (originating and targeted) is a pre-requisite of
translation. Roger Bacon, a famous English Philosopher and
the father of empirical method of science is one of the
advocates of this movement.

 As religion and fanaticism beat its rhythm in the 18th century,

Martin Luther made an axiomatic move to translate religious
literature, particularly the bible towards his native language.
 Eastern: Sinosphere Theory

 There is a separate tradition of translation in South Asia

and East Asia (primarily modern India and China), especially
connected with the rendering of religious texts —
particularly Buddhist texts — and with the governance of
the Chinese empire. Classical Indian translation is
characterized by loose adaptation, rather than the closer
translation more commonly found in Europe, and Chinese
translation theory identifies various criteria and limitations
in translation
 Eastern: Sinosphere Theory

 In the East Asia Sinosphere (sphere of Chinese

cultural influence), more important than translation
per se has been the use and reading of Chinese texts,
which also had substantial influence on the Japanese,
Korean and Vietnamese languages, with substantial
borrowings of vocabulary and writing system.
Notable is Japanese Kanbun, which is a system of
glossing Chinese texts for Japanese speakers.
 HISTORY OF
LITERARY
TRANSLATION
 HISTORY OF LITERARY
TRANSLATION

 First notable translation of the west would be the

Septuagint, Jewish sacred scriptures translated into
Koine Gk. (Jews needed Gk version of their
scriptures)

 Middle age, 19th cent – Latin was the lingua franca;

there were struggles in translating religious and
philosophical scriptures; text were then translated to
vernacular Latin.
 HISTORY OF LITERARY
TRANSLATION

 With the large-scale effort to spread Buddhism, Tangut

Empire utilized block printing translating centuries of
calligraphically rendered scriptures – promoting
understanding of Buddhism as personally supported by the
emperor and his mother

 After Arab conquered the Greek world, scientific and

philosophical accomplishments were translated to Arabic
texts. These text were then converted to Latin that later
helped the advancement of Scholasticism of European
world.
 HISTORY OF LITERARY
TRANSLATION

 13th century marked the flourishing of English

equivalents that gave rise to the name of Geoffrey
Chauser whose literary work entitled Knight’s Tale
marked the standards in translation.

 15th century dawned the translation of prose

literature opening the door to Arthurian literature to
European writing.
 HISTORY OF LITERARY
TRANSLATION

 Renaissance in Italy flipped another chapter in

literature by introducing the works of Plato in
straightforward language that also paved the way for
the works of other philosophers to be introduced in
European Literature.
General Purposes of Translation

1. Retrieval of lost information

2. Understanding of the Universal Truth
3. Sharing of beliefs
4. Understanding and appreciation of culture
5. Bridging cultural barrier
6. Advancement in human achievement
7. Addressing social needs
8. Social Empowerment
9. Binding nations
10. Neo-culture development
 LANGUAGE
INTERPRETATION
WHAT IS LANGAUGE INTERPRETATION?

 Language interpretation refers to the process of

providing ease of understanding between users of
language of origin and target language. This could
take the form of sign-language, oral interpretation or
technologically-assisted programs.
 Interpreting refers to the actual process of providing ease
of understanding from one language form into its actual or
approximate equivalent. Interpretation pertains to the
output of interpreting one language to another form
(speech, signals, text, etc.)

 Interpreter assumes the position of the person who

converts thoughts or expression of a language form and
defines its equivalent to target language.

 Equivalence in interpretation refers to linguistic, emotional,

tonal and cultural parallel meaning of a language format
with the target language.
 Takes a message from a source language and renders
that message into a different target language.
 Transfers the meaning of a language format from text
to text
 Interpreters take in a complex concept from one
language; choose the most appropriate vocabulary in
the target language to faithfully render the message
in equivalent idea.
 With ample time, translators use external resources
(dictionaries, thesaurus, glossaries, etc.) to faithfully
transfer the source language into the target language
to produce accurate documents or artifacts.
 Does not use verbatim in process
 Attempts to reproduce source language in its exact
equivalents of the target language
 Call for accuracy is instantaneous as the process is actual
and immediate (extempore, consecutive, chuchotage,
relay, liaison)
 Uses revisions and editing techniques to attain accuracy
MODES OF LANGUAGE
INTERPRETATION
 MODES OF LANGAUGE
INTERPRETATION

 Simultaneous (extempore) - interpreter renders the message in

the target language as quickly as he can formulate from the
source language while the source continuously provides input.

 Consecutive interpretation (CI) - interpreter renders the

message into the target language after the source stopped
provided the information. The interpreter relies on memory and
sometimes uses memory aids to render long passages. Sight
translation - refers to the process of transfering the language as
he sees it and usually done for legal or medical documents.
Could also be classified as partial or full consequtive
interpretation.
 MODES OF LANGAUGE
INTERPRETATION

 Whispered - interpreter sits or stands next to the small target-

language group and simultaneously interprets information
coming from the source language.

 Relay -usually used when there are several target languages. A

source-language interpreter interprets the text to a language
common to every interpreter, who then render the message to
their respective target languages.

 Liaison - involves passing on the message through relay, between

two or more, consecutively with the assistance of short notes as
memory aid.
 TECHNICAL
TRANSLATION
 What is technical translation?

 A technical translation refers to the need for specialist

translators due to the use of uncommon vocabulary
in a text. Topics such as medicine, finance, law,
engineering, software, manuals, etc would all be
considered as technical. These fields usually contain
big amount of specific circumstances or ways to
describe situations from the subject and also contain
high amount of jargon, words that are used (almost)
only within that specific technical field.
 What is technical translation?

 Technical translation can also be defined as the translation

of technical writing (owner's manuals, user guides, etc.), or
more specifically, texts that contain a high degree of
technical or specialized terminology, that is, words or
phrases that are virtually used only within a specific
profession, or describe that profession in great detail.
Technical translation covers the translation of many kinds
of specialized texts which requires a high level of subject
knowledge and mastery of the relevant terminology.
 LITERAL
TRANSLATION
WHAT IS LITERAL TRANSLATION?

 Literal translation – transference of one language format

to another following the form of the source language
and using the ‘verbum pro verbo’ principle. This is also
known as metaphrase process and commonly used in
technical translation and legal annotation conversions to
preserve the original format of the text undermining the
context of the original text.
 WHAT IS LITERAL TRANSLATION?

 In the light of contextual aspect, literal translation can be considered

as erroneous since it does not carry the register of the source
language.

 As for usage, literal translation can be a very useful tool for

translation preparation as it serves as a foundation in translating
unfamiliar language format.

 In communication, literal translation is currently being used in the

form of machine translation. One the most common example of these
would be internet translators (i.e. babelfish, google translate,
microsofttranslator, freetranslation, worldlingo, etc.)
 PRINCIPLES
OF
TRANSLATION
 Vinay and Darbelnet Theory

 Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalence-oriented

translation as a procedure which 'replicates the same
situation as in the original, whilst using completely
different wording' .
Vinay and Darbelnet`s Principles of
Translation

 Vinay and Darbelnet claim that they are acceptable as

long as they are listed in a bilingual dictionary as 'full
equivalents' (ibid.:255). However, later they note that
glossaries and collections of idiomatic expressions
'can never be exhaustive' (ibid.:256).
 They conclude by saying that 'the need for creating
equivalences arises from the situation, and it is in the
situation of the SL text that translators have to look
for a solution'
 Roman Jakobson – 3 Types of Translation
(On the Linguistic Aspects of Translation)

 Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or

paraphrase)

 Interlingual (between two languages)

 Intersemiotic (between sign systems)

Roman Jakobson – 3 Types of Translation
(On the Linguistic Aspects of Translation)

INTRALINGUALTRANSLATION
It refers to rewording or paraphrasing,
summarizing, expanding or commenting
within a language.

Example: Can you describe him?

Can you depict him?
 Roman Jakobson – 3 Types of Translation
(On the Linguistic Aspects of Translation)

INTERLINGUALTRANSLATION
Interlingual translation or translation proper is an interpretation
of verbal sign
Example:
in the case of ‘hello,' it is pointed out that English does not distinguish
between face to face greeting or that on the phone, whereas some
other languages like French, Italian, Japanese and German
languages explicitly make this distinction.
For example,
Japan. Konichiwa is hello there, but when answering a
phone, they say Mushi Mushi

Italian. Ciao is hello there, but on the phone they say Pronto which
means "I'm ready to speak to you now
Roman Jakobson – 3 Types of Translation
(On the Linguistic Aspects of Translation)

INTERSEMIOTICTRANSLATION
Intersemiotic translation or transmutation is an
interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal
sign systems"
Roman Jakobson – 3 Types of Translation
(On the Linguistic Aspects of Translation)

 the translator makes use of synonyms in order to get the ST

message across. This means that in interlingual translations
there is no full equivalence between code units
 'translation involves two equivalent messages in two
different codes‘
 Jakobson goes on to say that from a grammatical point of
view languages may differ from one another to a greater or
lesser degree, but this does not mean that a translation
cannot be possible, in other words, that the translator may
face the problem of not finding a translation equivalent
Roman Jakobson – 3 Types of Translation
(On the Linguistic Aspects of Translation)

 Jakobson's theory is essentially based on his semiotic

approach to translation according to which the
translator has to recode the ST message first and
then s/he has to transmit it into an equivalent
message for the TC.
 Vinay and Darbelnet Versus Jakobson

 There seems to be some similarity between Vinay and

Darbelnet's theory of translation procedures and Jakobson's
theory of translation

 Both theories stress the fact that, whenever a linguistic

approach is no longer suitable to carry out a translation, the
translator can rely on other procedures such as loan-
translations, neologisms and the like.
Vinay and Darbelnet Versus Jakobson

 Both theories recognize the limitations of a linguistic theory

and argue that a translation can never be impossible since
there are several methods that the translator can choose.
The role of the translator as the person who decides how to
carry out the translation is emphasized in both theories.
 Both Vinay and Darbelnet as well as Jakobson conceive the
translation task as something which can always be carried
out from one language to another, regardless of the cultural
or grammatical differences between ST and TT.
Nida and Taber`s Principles of
Translation

Formal Correspondence
and
Dynamic Equivalence
 Formal Correspondence

 Formal correspondence 'focuses attention on the message itself,

in both form and content', unlike dynamic equivalence which is
based upon 'the principle of equivalent effect' (1964:159). In the
second edition (1982) or their work, the two theorists provide a
more detailed explanation of each type of equivalence.
 Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents
the closest equivalent of a SL word or phrase
 Nida and Taber themselves assert that 'Typically, formal
correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns
of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message, so as
to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard'
 Dynamic Equivalence

 Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation principle

according to which a translator seeks to translate the
meaning of the original in such a way that the TL wording
will trigger the same impact on the TC audience as the
original wording did upon the ST audience
 Nida is much more interested in the message of the text
or, in other words, in its semantic quality. He therefore
strives to make sure that this message remains clear in the
target text.
 Catford and the introduction of
translation shifts

 Catford's approach to translation equivalence clearly

differs from that adopted by Nida since Catford had a
preference for a more linguistic-based approach to
translation and this approach is based on the
linguistic work of Firth and Halliday
Catford proposed very broad types of
translation in terms of three criteria:

 The extent of translation (full translation vs partial

translation);
 The grammatical rank at which the translation
equivalence is established (rank-bound translation
vs.unbounded translation);
 The levels of language involved in translation (total
translation vs. restricted translation).
House and the elaboration of overt
and covert translation

 House (1977) is in favour of semantic and pragmatic

equivalence and argues that ST and TT should match
one another in function.
 He suggests that it is possible to characterize the
function of a text by determining thesituational
dimensions of the ST.*
 Central to House's discussion is the
concept of overt and covert translations.

 In an overt translation the TT audience is not directly

addressed and there is therefore no need at all to
attempt to recreate a 'second original' since an overt
translation 'must overtly be a translation' (ibid.:189).
By covert translation, on the other hand, is meant the
production of a text which is functionally equivalent
to the ST. House also argues that in this type of
translation the ST 'is not specifically addressed to a TC
audience' (ibid.:194).
 Baker's approach to translation
equivalence

Bottom-up approach
Grammatical equivalence
Textual equivalence
Pragmatic equivalence
 Grammatical Equivalence

 referring to the diversity of grammatical categories

across languages.
 she claims that different grammatical structures in
the SL and TL may cause remarkable changes in the
way the information or message is carried across
 grammatical devices which might cause problems in
translation Baker focuses on number, tense and
aspects, voice, person and gender
 Textual equivalence

 referring to the equivalence between a SL text and a

TL text in terms of information and cohesion.
 three main factors, that is,
 the target audience,
 the purpose of the translation and
 the text type.
 Pragmatic equivalence

 when referring to implicatures and strategies of

avoidance during the translation process. Implicature
is not about what is explicitly said but what is implied.
 the translator needs to work out implied meanings in
translation in order to get the ST message across. The
role of the translator is to recreate the author's
intention in another culture in such a way that
enables the TC reader to understand it clearly.