Part One: Preliminaries, Theories, & Strategies

Chapter One
Introduction: Definitions and Types

1.1. Translation: Definitions

There has been a plethora of definitions which E. Nida (1964: 161-

164) has elaborately surveyed. He rightly elucidates:

Definitions of proper translating are almost as numerous and

varied as the persons who have undertaken to discuss the subject. This
diversity is in a sense quite understandable; for there are vast
differences in the materials translated, in the purpose of the publication,
and in the needs of the prospective audience (161).

Nevertheless, a definition which is not confined to the mere

transference of meaning is furnished by Nida and Taber (1969: 12) who
postulate:

Translation consists in reproducing in the receptor language the

closest natural equivalent of the source language message, first in terms
of meaning and secondly in terms of style. (Emphasis is mine).

Bell (1991: 5-6) seems to have pursued the same line of emphasis on
meaning and style in his translation of the definition given by the French
theorist, Dubois (1974) :

Translation is the expression in another language (or the target

language) of what has been expressed in another, source language,
preserving semantic and stylistic equivalences.

3
 The above definitions also stress the significance of
‘equivalence’ which underlies the following definitions,
among others: given by Meetham and Hudson (1972) and
Catford (1965):

Translation is the replacement of a text in one language by a

replacement of an equivalent text in a second language. (Meetham and
Hudson, 1972: 713)

Translation is the replacement of textual material in one language

(SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL). (Catford,
1965: 20)

On the other hand, functionalists view translation differently:

Translation is the production of a functional target text

maintaining a relationship with a given source text that is specified
according to the intended or demanded function of the target text.
(Nord, in shutttleworth and Cowie,2007:182)

N ord, however, distinguishes between two senses of translation:

wide and narrow. the target text we distinguish between oral translation ( =
‘interpreting’ ) and written translation (= ‘translation’ in the narrow sense).
(Nord, 2007: 141)

In a similar vein, Koller describes translation as a ‘text- processing

activity and simultaneously highlights the significance of ‘equivalence’:

Translation can be understood as the result of a text-processing

activity, by means of which a source-language text is transposed into a
target-language text.. Between the resulting text in L2 (the target-
4
language text) and the source text L1 (the source- language text) there
exists a relationship which can be designated as translational, or
equivalence relation. (Koller, 1995: 196)

Amongst the above definitions, Nida and Taber's may serve as a

basis for our concept of translation as a TL product which is as semantically
accurate, grammatically correct, stylistically effective and textually coherent
as the SL text. In other words, the translator's main attention should not be
focused only on the accurate semantic transference of SL message into the
TL, but also on the appropriate syntax and diction in the TL, which are
explicitly the translator's (not the source author's) domain of activity which
displays his true competence. Indeed, according to Wilss (1969:95),"the
notion of translation competence," "is aptly assessed in transfer situations
that require at least some degree of adaptation to new and challenging
textual demands." He describes such situations as "accommodatory
situations" which need "structural adjustment" (ibid) and generally textual
manipulation. In point of fact, the competent translator performs multiple
tasks with inevitable intricacies of performance. His approach to translating
expressive, emotive or expository texts in particular is deemed to be
creativity-oriented, that is, hermeneutic/manipulation rather than routine-
oriented. In the latter approach, SL words are mechanically replaced by their
TL equivalents, albeit one-to-one equivalence rarely, if ever, exists between
languages, as will be explicated in Chapter Five below.

5
 1.2. Types

There has also been a plethora of classifications of types of

translation albeit the basically overlapping and polarized dichotomy in a
binary oppositions starting with the oldest ‘literal’ vs (versus) ‘free’. Others
subsume ‘literary’ vs ‘non-literary’, semantic vs communicative, static vs
dynamic, among others. The first type of the afore- mentioned pairs concerns
the closeness , sometimes referred to as fidelity or faithfulness to the ST
(source text). This type tends to emphasize the inseparability of form from
content. The second type deems the source message
conveyable in a different form.

The above pairs are classified according to the criterion of method

or approach. Two criteria of classification will be elaborated below, namely:
code and mode.

1.2.1. Translation Types according to Code

Roman Jakobson (1959 in Schulte and Biguenet, 1992:145)

distinguishes three ways of interpreting a verbal sign: it may be translated
into other signs of the same language, into another language, or into another
code that is nonverbal system of symbols. These three types are succinctly
put as follows:

1.Intralingual translation or rewording: It is an interpretation of

verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language.

2.Interlingual translation or translation proper: It is an interpretation

of verbal signs by means of some other language.
6
 3.Intersemiotic translation or transmutation :It is an interpretation of
verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign system.

T he first type is exemplified by synonyms in the same linguistic

code or language, paraphrase or replacing an idiom
such as ‘pass away’ by ‘die’. The second type is seen in replacing certain
code-units in Sl by equivalent code-units in TL. The third refers to the use
of signs or signals for the purpose of communication; the most important
semiotic system is human language in contrast to other systems such as sign
language and traffic signals. Obviously, this type lies within Jakobson’s
framework in which translation is perceived as the conversion of a sign into
another alternative or equivalent sign, be it verbal or nonverbal. (Ibid, 232;
and Shuttleworth and Cowie, 2007: 85).

1.2.2. Translation Types according to Mode: Written vs. Oral:

Translating/Interpreting: General Remarks

Nida and Taber’s above definition, may best accommodate interpreting

as the reproduction of “ the closest natural equivalent” of the SL message in
the TL serves as a common ground or interface of translating and
interpreting”, the former is not mainly or exclusively concerned with the
accurate, semantic transference. The translated text should, at least ideally
and theoretically, be as semantically accurate, grammatically correct,
stylistically effective and textually coherent as the source text.

On the other hand, we may analogously postulate the following

workable definition for interpreting: Interpreting consists in conveying to

7
the target language the most accurate, natural equivalent of the source
language oral message.

There are at least five common or interfacial requirements for both

translating and interpreting competence vis-à-vis ten for interpreting. The
five requirements for competent translators are: mastery or proficiency of SL
and TL, thorough knowledge of source and target cultures, familiarity with
the topic/register, vocabulary wealth, and finally awareness of the three–
phase process, i.e., SL decoding, transcoding or SL-TL transfer and TL
encoding. Interpreting, on the other hand, requires at least five more: short-
term memory for storage and retrieval, acquaintance with prosodic features
and different accents, quick wittedness and full attention, knowledge of
short-hand writing for consecutive interpreting and finally self-composure.

1.2.3. Translating/Interpreting Constraints

The constraints imposed on the interpreters are more and greater than
those on the translator. They also vary in type and degree of intensity as
regards the direction of translating or interpreting, i.e., whether from L1 into
L2 or the other way round. Below are the main constraints.

1.2.3.1. Linguistic Constraints:

They subsume:

1.2.3.2.Syntactic Constraints.

The different word order in SL and TL puts a heavy burden on the

interpreter. A case in point is when interpreting a verbal sentence from
Arabic into English. The verb may introduce a long nominal phrase. The
interpreter has to store the verb and wait for the whole subject before he
8
could retrieve and start the English rendition. Deprived of the sufficient
time for manipulation, structural asymmetry often obliges the interpreter to
commit pauses and delays among other things.

1.2.3.3. Semantic Constraints

These constraints compel the interpreter to exert a far more laborious

effort than those originated by syntactic constraints, for as Jackendoff
(1991: 96) puts it, “once one understands the meaning, the syntax follows
naturally and automatically.” Lexical incompatibility between SL and TL
gives rise to slips, hesitations and even pauses, due to the interpreter’s
struggle with a difficult jargon term, a neologism or a blended word as in
interpreting words like Macdonalization or the 1980s Reagonomics.

‫تطبيق أسلوب شركة ماكدونالد أو االقتصاديات الريغانية‬

To mitigate semantic constraints, the interpreter should be fully

familiar with the speaker's topic and/or register.

1.2.3.4. Cultural and Phatic Constraints to cope with culture

specificities whether religious, political or social suchzakat, intifada,
autocracy and disco in addition to institutional nomenclature exemplified in
the different compounds with the Arabic dar ( house ) as in guesthouse.
‫ دار الضيافة‬rest house,dar al-istirahaha ‫دار االستراحة‬, orphanage dar al- aytaam
‫دار األيتام‬,radio/

broadcasting station dar al-idaa’a ‫دار اإلذاعة‬, The hereafter dar al-
baqa’‫ دار البقاء‬.

9
 1.2.3.5. Paralinguistic and Psychological Constraints

These constraints include the speaker’s tone and loudness of voice, the
tempo of delivery and gestures as well as the psychological state of the
interpreter and/or speaker as regards nervousness instead of self –
composure. The laborious task of simultaneous decoding and encoding and
his/her concern over accuracy of rendition puts him/her in a very stressful
situation. The act of interpreting is inversely proportional to the above
constraints and to such psychological factors as fatigue, timidity or stage
fright for interpreters who have to directly address the audience. The
constraints often trigger omissions, hesitations and even time lag.

1.2.4. Time Lag

Time lag refers to the time between the interpreter’s reception of the
speaker’s utterance and his/her production. It is ear-tongue or hearing-
voicing span. Time lag varies according to the nature of the SL message and
the number, type and intensity of the aforesaid constraints. For example, the
syntactic and lexical complexities and the pile-up of information segments
may oblige the interpreter to lag behind the speaker to get a clear
understanding, or at least the gist, of the message so as to reformulate it in
the TL. Such lag puts a heavy burden on the short-term memory of the
interpreter who might inevitably miss the subsequent segments of
information and produce poorly cohesive structures and/or rushed sentences.

1.2.5. Quality Assessment and Audience Reception

Only bilingual readers, listeners or critics can accomplish
translating/interpreting quality assessment. To be objective, the assessment

10
has to be based on certain criteria, the most obvious of which is the
semantic/stylistic fidelity to the original text/message. Fidelity entails such
parameters as accuracy, grammaticality, acceptability, idiomaticity, and
naturalness among others. Interpreting, however, requires other non –
linguistic criteria for assessment.

On the other hand, monolingual audience who justify the act of

translating/interpreting judge it in terms of other parameters, none of which
pertains to fidelity which explicitly necessitates full knowledge of the two
languages involved. The monolingual TL receptors, i.e., readers, judge
translation in terms of their own language: style, grammar and TT
intelligibility. The oral message receptors, i.e., listeners judge the
interpreting act according to not only the above mentioned, but to non–
linguistic criteria, at the top of which comes the message comprehensibility,
which cannot be gauged in either-or terms but graded along a spectrum
ranging from fully comprehensible when the interpretation is clear and easy
to understand to partially comprehensible and to totally incomprehensible.
Besides, the audience rate the interpreting quality according to other
criteria pertaining to smooth and fluent delivery, immediateness, pleasant
voice, natural intonation and articulation, speech rate ( whether fast or slow
), self–composure, and idiolectal features such as the use of exaggerated
fillers like emmm, errr…

11
 Chapter Two
Translation Theories: A Historical Perspective

2.0. For almost two thousand years, translation theory has been
concerned merely with outstanding works of art. The science of translation
or ‘translatology’ has not emerge until the 1940s in an attempt to establish
itself as a new discipline involving radical changes in the approach and
classification, away from the age-old dichotomy of ‘word vs. sense’ or
‘literal vs. free’ translation, which has dominated the traditional translation
theory since Cicero (cf. Snell-Hornby (1988: 1) . In point of fact, history of
translation theory deals with the following kinds of questions explicitly
stated by Baker:

What translators have had to say about their art / craft / science;
how translations have been evaluated at different periods; what kinds of
recommendations translators have made, or how translation has been
taught; and this discourse is related to other discourses of the same
period. (Baker, 2005:101)

More specifically, George Steiner in After Babel (1975:346- 40)

divides the literature on the theory, practice and history of translation into
four periods which extend from Cicero to the present, albeit their overlap
and loosely chronological structure.

2.1.The First Period

This period starts with the Romans. Eric Jacobsen (in Bassnett,
1988:48 ) goes so far as to hyperbolically propound that translation is

12
a Roman invention though translation is as old as language itself .Translated
documents were discovered in the third and the second millennium B.C., in
ancient Egypt and in Iraq. It extends from the statements of Cicero and
Horace on translation up to publication of Alexander Fraser Tytler’s Essay
on the Principles of Translation in 1791. It is perhaps the longest period as it
covers a span of some 1700 years. The main characteristic of this period is
that of ‘immediate empirical focus’, i.e., the statements and theories from the
practical work of translating. Both Horace and Cicero, in their remarks on
translation, make an important distinction between word for word translation
and sense for sense translation. The underlying principle of enriching the
native language and literature through translation leads to stress the aesthetic
criteria of the TL product rather than the more rigid notions of ‘fidelity’.
Horace in his Art of Poetry, warns against overcautious imitation of the
source model and slavish literalism:

“A theme that is familiar can be made your own property so long

as you do not waste your time on a hackneyed treatment; nor should
you try to render your original word for word like a lavish translator,
or in imitating another writer plunge yourself into difficulties from
the which shame, or rules, you have laid down for yourself,
prevent you from extricating yourself.” (Bassnett, 1988: 49)

This period concludes by Tytler’s definition of good translation as,

“That in which the merit of the original work is so completely

transfused into another language, as to be as distinctly apprehended,
and as strongly felt, by a native of the country to which that language

13
belongs, as it is by those who speak the language of the original work”.
(in Bell,1991: 11)

From the above definition, Tytler introduces three ‘laws’:

1. 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 with that of original.
3. The translation should have all the ease of original
composition. (Ibid)

2.2. The Second Period:

This period, according to Steiner, runs up to the forties of the twentieth

century. It is characterized as a period of theory and hermeneutic inquiry
with the development of a vocabulary and methodology of approaching
translation. ‘Hermeneutics’ is an interpretive approach developed by German
Romantics, and named after the Greek word hermeneuein, meaning ‘to
understand’. One of the early theorists in this period is the

French humanist Etienne Dolet who had propounded in 1540 a short

outline of translation principles, entitled a La maniere de bien traduire
d’unelangue en aultre ( How to Translate Well from Oone Language
into Another) and established five principles for the translator (in Bassnett :
58) .

1. 1. The translator must fully understand the sense and meaning

of the original author, although he is at liberty to clarify
obscurities

14
 2. 2. The translator should have a perfect knowledge of
both SL and TL.
3. The translator should avoid word-for-word renderings.
4. 4 . The translator should use forms of speech in common use.
5. 5. The translator should choose and order words
appropriately to produce the correct tone.

Dolet’s principles , ranked as they in a precise order, stress the

importance of understanding the text as a primary requisite. His views were
reiterated by George Chapman (559-1634), the great translator of Homer. In
his dedication to the Seven Books (1598) Chapman asserts that “The work of
a skilful and worthy translator is to observe the sentences, figures and
forms of speech proposed in his author.” He repeats his theory more fully in
the Epistle to the Reader of his translation of The Iliad,(in ibid:59)stating
that a translator must:

1. avoid word for word renderings;

2. attempt to reach the ‘spirit’ of the original;
3. avoid overloose translations, by basing the translation on
a sound scholarly investigation of other versions and glosses.

John Dryden (1631-1700), in his Preface to Ovid’s Epistle (1680),

tackled the problems of translation by formulating three basic types (in
Bassnett: 64):

1. metaphrase, or turning an author word by word, and line

by line, from one language into another;

15
 2. paraphrase, or translation with latitude, the Ciceronian
‘sense-for-sense’ view of translation;
3. imitation, where the translator can abandon the text of
the original as he sees fit. Dryden claims to have steered
“betwixt the two extremes of paraphrase and literal
translation” which he likens to a person dancing on ropes
with fettered legs.(Ibid).

2.3. The Third Period:

This period, which is the shortest as it extends to less than three

decades, starts with the publication of the first papers on machine
translation in the 1940s, and is characterized by the introduction of structural
and applied linguistics, contrastive studies in morphology and syntax among
others which help the translator identify similarities and differences between
NL and FL, and communication theory into the study of translation. It
comprises two eras: first the pioneering era (1949-1954); the second the
invention of the first generation of machine translation.

2.4. The Fourth Period:

The last period coexists with the third period as it has its origin in the
early 1960s, and is characterized by a recourse to hermeneutic inquiries into
translation and interpretation, i.e., by a revision of translation that sets the
discipline in a wide frame which includes a number of other disciplines.

This contemporary period has witnessed the emergence of many

new theories such as the ‘ polysystem theory, which has first arisen from

16
the work of a group Russian literary theorists. The concept of the
‘polysystem’ has received considerable attention in the work of certain
groups of translation scholars since the mid-1970s. The theory offers a
general model for understanding, analyzing and describing the functions and
evolution of literary systems, its specific application to the study of
translated literature. These systems, whether in the original or translated
texts subsume several levels: linguistic, cultural, and social, all of which
overlap and interact with each other.

‘Skopos theory’ is another theory which was developed in Germany

in the late 1970s (Vermeer, 1978). It reflects a shift from predominantly
linguistic and rather formal theories to a more functionally and socio-
culturally oriented concept of translation. The word ‘skopos’ is derived form
Greek as a technical term for the purpose of translation, i.e., skopos which
must be defined before translation begins. The theory endeavours to meet
the growing need in the latter half of the twentieth century for the translation
of non-literary texts: scientific, academic papers, instructions for use,
tourist guides, contracts, etc. According to this theory, the contextual factors
surrounding the translation should not be ignored. These factors include the
culture of the intended readers of the target text and the client who
commissioned it, and more significantly the function which the text aspires
to perform in that culture for those readers. Likewise, pragmatics stresses
the principle of intentionality in translation, i.e. significance of the text or the
author’s intention, and that the ‘comprehension of the intent’, according to
Nida, is a vital requisite of translation .

17
 The invention of computer has led to aspire after an automatic
machine translation (MT) wherein the computer is provided with
the ST to be reproduced automatically or – with the assistance of man as a
semantically equivalent and well-formed text in the TL.

Translation-oriented computerized technology in general and

machine translation (MT) in particular can be described as a complex and
diverse field in which a wide range of ‘actors’, such as translation theorists,
linguists, engineers among other researchers play a vital role in addition to
evaluators of end-user groups including professional translators, trainers and
translation companies.

MT is simply a translation performed either purely automatically by a

computer or with human assistance which involves the preparation of the
ST, i.e., pre-editing and/or product editing, i.e., post-editing. Historically,
MT has undergone five periods of development (As-Safi, 2004:207-227),
starting with the pioneering era followed by the second period which
witnessed at mid-fifties the appearance of the first generation whose systems
rely upon ‘direct translation’ wherein the ST words are replaced with TT
words after conducting the required morpho-syntatic changes based on the
contrastive differences between the SL and TL. The third period is initially
characterized by stagnation of research but later by the development of the
indirect approach of MT. The fourth period witnessed the appearance of the
second generation, which is the product of ‘rule-based approaches’ based on
the notion of translation as a process involving the analysis and

18
representation of the ST meaning by TL equivalents. Furthermore, in this
period there emerged other rule-based approaches which, according to
Palumbo (00973-74) rely on rules that convert the abstract SL
representation into an abstract TL representation. These systems require
various transfer models for different language pairs.

The fifth period is marked with the third generation as the product of
‘corpus-based approaches’ which seem to have gained popularity in the early
1990s. It employs a reference corpus of TTs and STs, particularly statistical-
based approaches which use algorithms to match the new TL segments with
the built-in SL segments and their equivalents contained in the corpus, then
compute the possibility that corpus-based TL equivalents are valid TL
segments for the new text to be translated. (Quah, 2006: 196)

2.5. Arabs’ Theorization

The Arabs, according to Baker (2005: 318), are credited with

initiating the first organized, large-scale translation activity in history. This
activity started during the reign of the Umayads (661-750) and reached its
zenith under the Abbasids (750- 1258), particularly during the reign of Al-
M’mun (813-33) , known as the Golden Era of translation. Al-Ma’mun had
founded in 830 the most important institute of higher learning in Islam,
which also became the most celebrated center of translation in Arab history.
Bait Al-Hikma (House of Wisdom), in Baghdad, functioned as an academy,
library and translation bureau which had a personnel of 65 translators.

19
Two methods of translation had been adopted: the first, associated with
Yuhana Ibn Al-Batriq and Ibn Na’ima Al-Himsi, was highly literal and
consisted of translating each Greek word with an equivalent Arabic word,
but when there is no equivalent, the Greek word is adopted. This method, as
in all literal translations, was not successful so that many of their
translations were later revised by Hunayn Ibn Ishaq with whom the second
method was associated, which exercised translating sense-for-sense.
Thus it creates fluent translated texts which convey the meaning of the
original without distorting the TL. Ibn Ishaq and his followers had
apparently given priority to the requirements of the target language and
readers, stressing the significance of readability and accessibility, and
employing, what he called ‘pleasant and limpid style which can be
understood by the best-known writers in his time , albeit never been a
practitioner, is Al-Jahiz (d.869) who sharply remarks in his statements about
translators and translation, insisting that the translator can never do the
original writer justice or express him with fidelity.

2.7. Contemporary Status of Translation Theory

It seems that there is no unanimity on the role played by theory in

translation practice. Peter Emery (2000:105) cites Klein- Braley (1996:26)
among others who maintain that ‘theory’ has no place in most university
translation programmes and go so far as to declare that it should be
discarded in favour of more practical work. But this scientifically and
empirically unfounded view is easily refuted by the general consensus that
any translation programme direly needs some sort of principled theoretical
background, let alone a rigorous theory, to guide practice. We strongly
concur with Bahumaid (1996:99) who characterizes the lack of theoretical

20
component as a serious drawback in most Arab university translation
programmes.

21