Damanhur University
Faculty of Arts
Department of English Language and Literature
THEORIES OF TRANSLATION
4th Year (Language Section)
Lecture 5
Outline
Introduction
Classification of translation theories
Philological theories
Linguistic theories
Sociolinguistic theories
References
Introduction
According to Newmark (1981: 19), 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. Any theory should also be
concerned with translation strategies adopted to
address difficulties and problems in certain
complicated texts.
A rigorous theory of translation would also include
something like a practical evaluation procedure
with specific criteria. A good survey of the
theories of translation is perhaps best furnished
by E. Nida who asserts that due to the fact that
translation is an activity involving language
there is a sense in which any and all theories of
translation are linguistic (1976:66-79).
Classification of Theories of Translation
A good survey of the theories of translation is
perhaps best furnished by E. Nida (1976:66-79)
who avers that due to the fact that translation is
an activity involving language there is a sense in
which any and all theories of translation are
linguistic (ibid:66). He classifies these theories
into three main categories:
Philological theories
Linguistic theories and
Socio-linguistic theories
1. 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.
Philological theories of translating deal with the
problem of the equivalence of literary texts by
comparing and contrasting the SL and the TL.
They also focus on the literary quality, i.e. the
form of the text and its stylistic features and
rhetorical devices.
Another major issue in philological theories of
translating is the problem of equivalence of
literary genres between the SL and the TL. The
question whether poetry should be translated as
poetry or prose or whether an epic in the SL
should be rendered as such in the TL was one of
the main obsessions of such theories.
2. Linguistic Theories
Linguistictheories of translation, according
to Nida (1976: 69), 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.
Thus, ‘Linguistic Translation’ ( or Linguistic
Approach ) is a product of these theories which
view translation as simply a question of
replacing the linguistic units of the ST (source
text) with “equivalent” TL units without
reference to factors such as context or
connotation.
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.”
One major difference between linguistic theories
of translating and philological theories of
translating is that linguistic theories are
descriptive rather than prescriptive. They
demonstrate how people translate rather than
how they should translate.
According to Nida (1976): The principal
differences between various linguistic theories
(or semi-theories) of translation lie in the extent
to which the focus is on surface structures or
corresponding deep structures. Theories based
on surface-structure comparisons involve the use
of more-or-less elaborate sets of rules for
matching roughly corresponding structures.
3. Sociolinguistic Theories
Sociolinguistic theories of translating emerged out of the
dissatisfaction with linguistic theories of translating, and
the growing interest in communication. Such interest
resulted from the work of anthropologists who recognized
the role of text recipients in the process of translating.
Sociolinguistic theories of translating relate linguistic
structures to a higher level where they can be viewed in
terms of their function in communication. When discussing
a text, the sociolinguist is concerned particularly with its
author, its historical background, the circumstances
involved in its production, and the history of its
interpretation.
Nida and Taber (1969), have pointed out that the
old focus on the form of the message in
translation has shifted to the receptors, i.e. the
readers. Therefore, it is the reader's response to
the translated message that determines the
correctness of that message. They set the
average reader as the only criterion for
measuring correctness in translating.
Correctness, in their view, is not only the
possibility of understanding the message by
readers but rather the impossibility of
misunderstanding it.
References
Newmark, p. (1981). Approaches to Translation.
Pergamon: Oxford.
Nida, E.A. (1976) 'A Framework for the Analysis
and Evaluation of Theories of Translation’. In
R.W. Brislin,(ed.), Translation Application and
Research. New York, pp. 47-91.
Nida, E. and Taber, C. (1969). The Theory and
Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Dr.Eman Allam
