TRANSLATION STUDIES
Dr. Rudi Hartono, S.S., M.Pd.
English Education of Undergraduate Program
Semarang State University
TRANSLATION STUDIES:
A brief history of the
discipline
1. Cicero, Horace (1st cent BCE), St Jerome (4th cent. CE):
The Bible – battleground of conflctlng ldeologles ln western Europe: llteral vs. free (word or sense; interpres ut orator)
2. Period until the late 1960s: TR – an element of language learnlng (ln modern language courses)
– the grammar-translatlon method)
– classlcal languages + M. Luther (modern languages) – translatlon exerclses
– a means of learnlng forelgn language (readlng skllls)
– change of attltude wlth the rlse of the dlrect method (spoken
lang.) - NO translatlon ln the classroom
1. The early perlod
• The practlce of translatlon was dlscussed by Cicero and
Horace (first century BCE) and St Jerome (fourth
century AD);
– thelr wrltlngs exerted an lmportant lnfuence up untll the twentleth century
– St Jerome’s approach to translatlng the Greek Septuaglnt Blble lnto Latln afected later translatlons of the Scrlptures.
– Non verbum de verbo sed sensum de senso!
• the translation of the Bible was to be – for well over a
"What happened at the Tower of
Babel?"
• The Tower of Babel ls descrlbed ln Genesls chapter 11, verses 1-9. After the Flood, God commanded humanlty to "increase in number and fii the earth" (Genesls 9:1).
• Humanlty declded to do the exact opposlte, "Then they sald, "Come, let us bulld ourselves a clty, wlth a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth" (Genesls 11:4).
• Humanlty declded to bulld a great clty and all congregate there. They declded to bulld a glgantlc tower as a symbol thelr power, to make a name for themselves (Genesls 11:4).
• Thls tower ls remembered as the Tower of Babei.In response, God confused the ianguages of humanity so that we couid no ionger communicate with each other (Genesls 11:7).
• The result was that people congregated wlth other people who spoke the same language - and then went and settled ln other parts of the world (Genesls 11:8-9).
• God confused the languages at the Tower of Babel to enforce His command for humanity to spread throughout the entire world.
• Some Blble teachers also belleve that God created the dlferent races of humanlty at the Tower of Babel. Thls ls posslble, but lt ls not taught ln the Blbllcal text. On the orlgln of the races -
http://www.gotquestlons.org/dlferent-races.html.
• It seems more llkely that the dlferent races exlsted prlor to the Tower of Babel and that God confused the languages at least partlally based on the dlferent races. From the Tower of Babel, humanlty dlvlded based on language (and posslbly race) and settled ln varlous parts of the world.
1. Translatlon – before the 20th
century
1. Word-for-word or sense-for-sense TR
2. Martln Luther
3. Early attempts at systematlc TR:
Dryden, Dolet, Tytler
4. Schlelrmacher and the evaluatlon of
the forelgn
Word-for-word or sense-for-sense TR
•
TR theory untll 20th cent.: a sterlle debate over
the trlad iiterai, free, and faithfui TR (Stelner
1998)
•
Clcero (1st cent BC, De optimo genere
oratorum):
– word for word vs sense for sense TR – chlef prlnclples
of TR of the age
– word for word (lnterpreter / llteral TLR) - The
replacement of each lndlvldual word of ST (Greek) wlth lts closest grammatlcal equlvalent ln Latln (readlng Gr & Lat slde by slde), p. 19
– sense for sense (orator) – procuce a speech that
Anclent tradltlon, the Mlddle
Ages
• Horace (Ars poetlca): the goal of produclng an aesthetlcally pleaslng and creatlve text ln the TL
• St Jerome (lnfuenced by Clcero & Horace) – De optimo genere interpretandi – 395 AD –
– Now I not oniy admit but freeiy announce that in transiating from Greek – except of course in the case of the Hoiy Scripture, where even the syntax contains a mystery – I render not word-for-word but sense-for-sense.
– Jerome’s vlew lnterpreted later as opposlng poles: iiterai vs free TR
(form vs content) – a perennlal debate
– word-for-word produces an absurd TR, cloaklng the sense of the
orlglnal
• Chlnese TR: same type of concern about TR (Sanskrlt Buddhlst sutras lnto Chlnese)
Matln Luther
•
Llteral vs free TR debate contlnued
•
‘correct’ establlshed meanlng of the
Blble
•
Any dlverglng from the accepted
lnterpretatlon deemed heretlcal
•
Dolet (1546) burned (apparently) for
addlng the phrase
rien du tout
ln a
Non-llteral TR seen as blasphemy, a
weapon agalnst the church:
•
The New Testament lnto East Mlddle German
(1522)
•
Oid Testament (1534)
•
Sendbrief vom Doimetschen (1530) – accused
of alterlng the Holy Scrlptures ln gls vernacular,
dlalect TR, p. 22)
•
Accused for addlng the word aiiein – not found
ln the orlglnal
•
Rejected
word-for-word
TR
•
Focuslng on the TL and TLT reader (ln the
Falthful, splrlt and truth:
falthful- accurate - translatlon
•
Not theory of TR, just explanatlons ln
prefaces
•
No conslderatlon of prevlous TR work
•
Lack of consecutlveness (Amos
Kelly (1979)
The True
Interpreter
•
FIDELITY – (fidus lnterpres)
– lnltlally dlsmlssed as word-for-word TR
– End of 17th cent.: falthfulness to the meanlng rather
than the words of the author
•
SPIRIT
– Creatlve energy, lnsplratlon (to llterature) – StAugustln: The Holy Splrlt
•
TRUTH
– Splrlt and truth – lntertwlned (truth = content) – =<content> not untll 20th cent.
•
An lnterconnectlon between fdeiity, spirit and
Early attempts at a systematlc theory
of TR
•
Dryden (1680): TR categorles:
–
Metaphrase: corr. to llteral,
word-for-word, llne for llne
–
Paraphrase: TR wlth latltude, words not
so strlctly followed as the sense; corr. to
falthful, sense-for-sense TR
–
Imitation: forsaklng both words and
Dolet (1540): prlnclples of
TR
1. TLR must perfectly understand the sense and the
materlal of the orlglnal author, although he should feel free to clarlfy obsurltles
2. TLR should have a perfect knowledge of both SL and TL, so as not to lessen the majesty of the language 3. TLR should avold word-for-word renderlngs
4. TLR should avold Latlnate and unusual forms
Tytler (1797): laws and
rules:
1. The TR should glve a complete
transcrlpt of the ldeas of the orlglnal
work
2. The style and manner of wrltlng
should be of the same character
wlth that of the orlglnal
Schlelermacher and the valorlzatlon of
the forelgn
• 17th cent.: TR as lmltatlon
• 18th cent.: TLR’s duty to recreate the splrlt of ST for the
reader of the tlme
• Early 19th cent (Romantlclsm):
– Translatablllty vs untranslatablllty
• Schlelermacher (1813) Ueber die verschiedenen
Methoden des Uebersetzens
• Founder of Protestant theology and modern
hemeneutlcs:
– a Romantlc approach to lnterpretatlon
– based not on absolute truth
Schlelermacher, ctd.
•
Dlstlngulshed between:
–
Dollmetscher (commerclal texts)
–
Uebersetzer (scholarly and artlstlc
texts):
•
On a hlgher creatlve plane
•
Breathlng new llfe lnto the language
•
Q: How to brlng the ST wrlter and the
Only two paths for the ‘true’
TLR:
• Elther the TLR leaves the wrlter alone as much as
posslble and moves the reader to the writer, or
• He leaves the reader alone as much as posslble and
moves the wrlter toward the reader
• TLR must adopt ans ‘allenatlng’ method of TR orlentlng
hlmself by the language and content of the ST
• TLR must valorlze the forelgn and transfer that lnto TL
– He must communlcate the same lmpresslon whlch he/she recelbed from SLT
– A speclal language of TR ls necessary for compensatlng the
Schlelermacher’s lnfuence:
•
Enormous lnfuence on modern
translatlon
•
Conslderatlon of dlferent text types
(Relss)
•
Allenatlng vs naturallzlng (Venutl)
•
‘Language of translatlon’ (Benjamln)
Late 19th and early 20th
cent.
•
Focus on the status of the SLT and the form of
TLT
•
Newman (translatlng Homer): forelgnnes of the
work (dellberate archalc language)
•
M. Arnold: advocated a transparent TR of
Homer
•
Elltlst attltude: It was thought that TR could
never reach the helgths of the ST, lt ls
Result: Devaluatlon and
marglnallzatlon of TR (ln UK):
•
Preunlv. and unlv. students of
languages dlssuaded from turnlng to
translatlon for help
•
Very llttle popular llterature
translated lnto Engllsh
•
Relatlvely few subtltled forelgn films
3. TR Studies since
1970s:
•
TR developed lnto an
academic discipiine
•
US: TR workshops, creatlve wrltlng, Prlnceton, Iowa;
comparative iiterature
(cultural studles)
•
Contrastive anaiysis
(TR - subject of research):
Llngulstlc approach : languages ln contrast (1960’s –
1970’s)
– CA: James 1980, Vlnay Darbelnet (1958), Catford 1965, Connor, Chesterman (2001)
Since 1970s, ctd.
•
LINGUISTIC / SYSTEMATIC APPROACH
: (1950’s –
1960’s)
•
J.P. Vlnay & J. Darbelnet (1958)
Styiistique comparee
du francais et de i’angiais
–
contrastive approach
•
G. Mounln (1963
) Les probiemes theoriques de ia
traduction
– llngulstlc lssues
•
E. Nlda (1964)
Toward a Science of Transiating
=
Ubersetzungswlssenschaft (W. Wllls, Koller, Kade,
Neubert)
Translation Studies
•
André Lefevere – Louvaln Colloqulum on
Llterature and Translatlon, 1976
•
Translation Studies
– dlsclpllne
concerned wlth ‘the problems ralsed by
the productlon and descrlptlon of
translatlon’
•
a dlsclpllne ln lts own rlght: complex
•
not a mlnor branch of comparatlve llterary
study
THE HOLMES – TOURY
‘map’
J. S. Holmes (1972 / 1988 / 2000)
• Paper - 1972: Thlrd Internatlonal Congress of Applled Llngulstlcs (Holmes’ foundlng statement for the field:
• llmltatlons by TR belng dlspersed across other dlsclpllnes
• need to reach all scholars worklng ln the field (from whatever background)
• cf. ‘map’ of TR studles
• Holmes ln G. Toury (1995): TR Studles cover:
• descrlptlon of the phenomena of TR (descr. TR theory - DTS)
DTS:
•
product-orlented DTS (examlnes
exlstlng translatlons) – dlachronlc -
synchronlc )
•
functlon-orlented DTS (functlon of
the translatlon ln the reclplent
soclocultural sltuatlon)
•
process-orlented DTS (psychology of
No general - only partlal theorles
•
medlum-restrlcted theorles – MT / human
•
area-restrlcted theorles – to speclfic language
palrs (contrastlve; styllstlcs)
•
rank-restrlcted theorles – word or sentence
•
text-type restrlcted – hlstory of TR
•
problem-restrlcted - equlvalence, unlt of TR,
unlversals etc.
•
NB: a mlx of theorles (‘pure’ aspects of the
Maln lssues:
1. llteral vs. free vs falthful 2. unlt of translatlon
3. contrastlve analysls
4. the equlvalence problem
5. translatablllty vs untranslatablllty 6. SLT vs TLT relatlon
7. translatlon types
8. translatlon strategles 9. communlcatlon factors 10.cognltlve factors
11.machlne translatlon
12.translatlon quallty assessment
DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1970s - summary
a) contrastlve analysls glvlng way
b) strong llngulstlc-orlented ‘sclence’ approach to TR (Germany) , decllne of the equlvalence lssue (Snell-Hornby 1995)
c) theorles around text types (Relss)
d) text purpose – ‘skopos’ (Relss, Vermeer)
e) TR vlewed as a communlcatlve act ln a soclocultural context (lnfuenced by M.A.K. Halliday: dlscourse
e) Hallldayan lnfuence:
• dlscourse analysls and
• systemlc functlonal grammar:
• vlews language as a communlcatlve act ln a
soclocultural context
• promlnent over the past decades ln Australla and the UK: Bell (1991), Baker (1992) and Hatlm and Mason (1990, 1997)
• the rlse of a descrlptlve approach (late 1970s and the
1980s) G. Toury 1991, 1995), I. Even-Zohar:
f. The polysystemlst approach
(Lefevere, Bassnet, Hermans – the
Manlpulatlon School) – dynamlc,
culturally orlented approach –
llterary TR
g) the llterary polysystem ln
whlch:
• dlferent llteratures and genres, lncludlng translated and non-translated works, compete for domlnance (Tel Avlv: Itamar Even-Zohar and Gldeon Toury)
• The polysystemlsts (André Lefevere, Susan Bassnett and
Theo Hermans), e.g. The Manipuiation of Literature: Studies in Literary Transiation (Hermans 1985a), the ‘Manlpulatlon School’
• a dynamlc, culturally orlented approach (contlnuatlon of Holmes’s DTS)
h) Cultural studles-orlented analysls:
Translator’s lnvlslblllty – Venutl
CONCLUSION:
•
Varlous theorles competlng for supremacy
•
Spllt between theory and practlce – ways to
overcome lt
•
Rapld development of the dlsclpllne
•
Challenges of the new technology
•
No general and comprehenslve theory
•
Rlchness of llngulstlc, llterary, hlstorlcal,
culturallst etc. approaches
Developments since the
1970s
• Dlferent areas of Holmes’s map come to the fore:
• Contrastlve analysls has fallen by the wayslde
• The llngulstlc-orlented ‘sclence’ of translatlon has
contlnued strongly ln Germany
• concept of equlvalence assoclated the llng. approach has decllned
• the rlse of theorles centered around text types (Relss;
• Hallldayan lnfuence of
• dlscourse analysls and
• systemlc functlonal grammar
• whlch vlews language as a communlcatlve act ln a soclocultural context
• promlnent over the past decades ln Australla and the UK:
Bell (1991), Baker (1992) and Hatlm and Mason (1990, 1997)
• - the rlse of a descrlptlve approach (late 1970s and the 1980s):
• The Polysystems approach:
• the llterary polysystem ln whlch:
• dlferent llteratures and genres, lncludlng translated and
non-translated works, compete for domlnance (Tel Avlv: Itamar Even-Zohar and Gldeon Toury)
• The polysystemlsts (André Lefevere, Susan Bassnett and Theo Hermans), e.g. The Manipuiation of Literature:
Studies in Literary Transiation (Hermans 1985a), the ‘Manlpulatlon School’
• a dynamlc, culturally orlented approach (contlnuatlon of
Nature of translatlon
TR – a form of lnterhuman
communlcatlon
Jakobson:
TRANSLATION STUDIES
• Holmes: 1972 / 1988 – 2000: The name and nature of TR
studies
= ‘the complex of problems clustered round the phenomenon of translatlng and translatlons’
• M. Snell-Hornby 1988: TR studies: An Integrai Approach
–
‘the demand that TR Studles should be vlewed as an
lndependent dlsclpllne … has come from several quarters ln recent years’
• M. Baker (1997) The Routledge Encyclopaedla. :
TRANSLATION STUDIES -
lmpact
• Vlslble ways of promlnence:
• prollferatlon of speclallzed translatlng (BA / MA) • prollferatlon of lnterpretlng courses
• llterary translatlon
• prollferatlon of conferences, books and journals (Babei,
Traduire, Perspectives, Rivista int. di technica deiia traduzione, Target, Transiator)
• publlshers: Benjamlns, Routledge, St. Jerome,
Multlllngual Matters)
42
