NTRODUCTION TO THE Theory of Translation AISS! Layacki, M.A. , Ph. D. Anstitut d'Interpretariat et de ‘Traduction ' Universite d'Alger ‘The twenticih century could be once more considered as the ‘age of translation’. The huge quantity of books and works in all fields of knowledge translaicd in different languages along with ‘the increasing importance of the daily role played by translation ‘in the modern world communication suggest this claim | Since the foundation in 1953 of FACT, (Bederation ternationale des Tradueteurs) interest in translation, as & iscipline to be studied and inverstigated, hus developed rapidly. cries of studies on-Various axpects of trunslation, ranging from the linguistic to the sesthetic and humanistic were published, Prior to the twentieth century. translation difficulties were scribed by translation theorists (Cicero, Si Jerome, Dryden, let) as being mainly stylistic and aesthetic. '. the main issue was whether Transtation should be ‘The interest ip transkuion. in the twentieth ceatury, ranges nm the practical concerns of professionil translators to the Ieoretical speculations of linguists seeking to understand the ieucies of transiation, It is. interesting to know that although ofessional translators have set some rules and techniques for S process of translation, and presented some personal views ondifferent aspects of their luced no theory of translation. Linguists, om the used translation 1 shed some light on such as bilingualism foreign language teach r in the compurison af the patterns of two. Nevertheless, it n seme confidence that translation theory as ad was iiitiated in the middle of the: ixtics by Nida, Catford, i, cle, They atiempted to apply: ) linguistic theorics 10 translation atid shed some light on its process. In the ‘seventies, translation theory advance considerably thanky 16 numerous contributions and ne: achievements in language-related theories, panicularly semantics, text-lingui communication theory, psycho-an socia-linguisties which provided a new stimulus to the systemati study of the process of translation. Since 1950's, linguists began to consider tanslation. as scientific task using the rigorous tools availuble (0 linguistic: Many ‘theories’ of translation have been constructed on the basi of theories of language (see lefewre 1970a), Linguists believe tion difficulties are mainly linguistic in a marro her than semantic or aesthetic. Hence. translati occupies 3 central position in linguistics, for it entails sor fundamental issue's the science of kinguaze bats to tackle However, as early ax 1935, J. Ro Fieth put transition int domain of semantics. In bis seminal paper "the Technique Semantics” he suggests that’ the whole problem of translation in the field of semantics’, For him, there was phonetic meani Phonological meaning, lexigal meaning and situational meani and all were involved in the process of translation (see Greg 1980, 455). Generally translation has been considered by linguists as topic to be studied with the meuns of contrastive linguistics, 1 is, linguists have tended to give preference to an approach translation based on the comparison of linguistic structures assess their potential use as tanslation equivalents (see Prez 1978),By considering language as a system and social institution, De Saussure (1949, chapter TH, 2) stresses the importance of linguistic communication as a social phenomenon and Consequently puts trinslition within the sociolinguistic perspective, Thus, the translator should tike into account the faet that finguistic communication occurs usuelly as an exchange and an interiction between individuals belongiag to a certain group. When this exchange goes beyond the group. the linguistic differences and most importantly the socio-cultural differences should be taken into consideration. Accordingly, word-for-word translation for De Saussure cannot function factarily as. words in one langtuige do not Nave the same ‘conceptual surface’ in another language. Sharing the same views as de Saussure, Bloomfield studied language in ity context and stated that any’ communication process occurs ina complex social and cultural contest (sec Dussurt 1977), However. while some linguists insists on the role of language in the apperception of the world and highlight the differences ing between Linguages. others - such as Greenberg and Chomsky- (see: Commie. 1981) look for ‘language universals’ is, features of properties shared by all languages, Language iversals may throw some light on the possibility of translating om one language tv another if we assume that similarities do -xist herween languages, In contrast, it is suggested that each gusige makes ils own distinctions differently, since according Humboldt, languages do not retlect the same experience of the id in a similar way (see: Mounin, 1963, chap. IV). Language, for Humboldt, ix a reflection of extra-linguistie ealities which are characteristic af the speech community valved, In other words. langues are not ‘universal copies! of dorov (1953}.0n the other hand, incorporated the study of ion in the general framework of linguistics and insisted Aranslation is purely linguistic operation, He considered nslution theory as "deriving Irom observation and provithe basis for practice” (see: Newiiark 1982, 9), Contrary to Humboldt, he believes that all experiences are translatable, Vinay and Darbelnet (1958), although sharing some of the views with fedorov, acknowledge that translation ix an independent discipline which has its own peculiar techniques and problems. Nonetheless, it cun be studied with the methods of contemporary linguistics. In addition 10 applying de Bally linguistic theories to translation through ‘stylistique comparée their biggest contribution to translation theary is the notion of situational equivalence, This notion suggests that, for cach SL. situstion a similar TL, situation should be sought: Mounin (1963) discussing translation theories and their relation to semantics, suggests that for euch language core sponds ‘4 particular organization of experience. According to this notion, language is a reflection of culture, and sine each culture Has its own orgapization and churacteristi¢s, Similarity eack language hus its own organization. Consequenily, the experience formulated by one Language cannot occur withthe same form in another Languay ¢: Mounin 1963, 44-45), Thus for Mounin, the experience formulated by a source Jamgiiiee text can be rendred in the TL by analysing the characteristics of the situation expressed by the message. Different Languages do express, with different Linguistic structures, the same physical event; but as Humbaldldt sees it, they do not reflect the same experience of the event similarly. Mounin considerrd translation as point of contact beeween Languages and believed thar Linguistics may throw some light on the process of iranslution itself which constitutes a theoretical problem for Linguists. However, he stresses that, 10 a certain extent, it is not possible to include all aspects of translation in exhaustive definition which depends exclusively on Linguistics. Mounin supports Cary’s claim (1958) that aranslation is Sui-generis operation, and therefore should be studied as such i all its aspects, As a literary teanslator himself, Cary believes th literary uranslation is primarily a literary operation and not 32(istic one. His argument is that the linguistic camten stitutes only the basic tool far the process of translation. It is context and the rehitions between two cultures which eharacierize translation. Hence, for Cary. translation should be died separately from ather disciplines Literary translation is indeed a literary endeavour, but Hinguistic Knowledge or analysis is necessary for the understanding of a source fynguuge text, Some translations, on “the other hand, cannot he solely the result of a linguistic process. A tvanslation of a theateical play cannot be the result of & purely “Ringuistic analysis but mainly 2 product al @ dramatic activity, ‘To the literary critic who concems himself with the aesthetic “and creative aspect of kuiuage, translation tay be regarded as an ar which has nothing to do with linguistics. Hence. sore literary translitors, were - and still are -agsinst the idea of considering translation asa linguistic discipline. Translation considered as an ‘aitistic’ operalion, eliminates any scientific aspect of the process whieh will enable it to be included in the general framework of linguist On the other hand, some linguists such ay Pinchuek (1977, 17) belicve that ‘linguistics, undoylsiedly. his most to give and nshition as 4 discipline should be regarded as a branch ‘of plied linguistics’, Linguists, as well as some (ranslators. defend idea thar transfatien is fundamentally a linguistic process. ic knowledge. they argue. is essential 10 understand the anguige text, and therefore to reconstedct it in the target nguage. Since linguistics is a'science! the subject of which is 1. dy how humun communication system functions and since nslution is an exercise ona text which is part of the munication system. linguistics, therelore, may provide the Jaior with the necessary tools and techniques to analyse and derstand haw tow languages function ane also may enable bim perform an adequnue transfer ol the target langusive:‘The notion that transla if in a narrow sense, stems: from the ‘a text W Of signs and: structures that have to be! 0 understood by” the translator. However, perate mainly on linguistic structures but e any modelo translation should tke a the concepts and situations the words or linguist ; transposig word-for-word of structure and each: utterance ¥ meanings. Consequently, 0 jon! dees involve an operation on the linguistic. elements of the text. ie, 0 linguistic analysis, before invelvin: meaning. But most importantly it deals with meaning and the. Process is curried aut within the domain of meani necessitates i semantic analysis of SL text. Moreover, onc aspect in translation is related to the difficulty of translating connotations (see for this instance Nida 1969, Mounin: 1963), s do, indeed. constitute obstacles to the transfer of ion fo another, from one language to another. and even to the Wansfer of a messige {rom one persoll to another within the same culture and language (sce Mounin 1963, &). As usually n inslicates: corresponds Lo hu denotes, but what i capresses aks not cortespoud automat fo what it connotes. Accordingly. a pragn i if we want to understand the SL tet tu ‘The three types of analyses linguistic. sem mentioned, interact with each ather 10 solve ceriain translation difficulties related 1 meaning. These difficulties origitiate partly | from the non-existence of dineel equivalence between languages, because even if the lexical units seemed to be similar. their semantic fields or pragmatic interpretations are different. Textual equivalence is almost never produced by the formal correspondence cither word-for-word or stricta xitems. as Catford (1969, 49) puts it, in the linguistic sense, but they jowever, the SL and the TL rarely have the same meanir {function in the same situation’, Nevertheless. it is sometimes argued that translation ificultics are mainly the result of the differences benween SL. id TL coltures. Languages, as we suggested hefore, are not niversal copies of a universal reality, but each corresponds to a ticular organization of the hunan experience (¢f Mounin 976,01). Translation difficulties ure the reflection af cultural ferences muateriilized by the differences of two linguistic ystems, jn many cases. the translator may be faced with sed mtainly by differences: in the systematic structures of the two languages, These problems and difficulties fre. ay Popovic (197, 75) sees them, unavoidable but “cannot be considered significant as they are the result of disparity and assymetry in the development of the two linguistic tnditions”. Nonetheless, we should not neglect any aspect of the differences existing between linguages since any attempt to consider them ‘not significant’ may affect the ageuraey of translation. Accuricy, here. is nol used in a strictly formal sense, but is related to meaning, Accuracy may: be. judjed according to the extent ta, which the response of the TL reader is equivalent to the response of the SL reader (see Nida 1964, 88) provided that the ‘messige or the meaning in SLT and TLT is similar despite the inguistie and guttural differences. istic problems are often compounded by sharp ultieal ditterences beiween the people associated with languages ealt with in translation, Often, the difficulties emerge because 2s! fo he qranskued from, one language donot exist in ‘cortesponding culture of the eiber language. Heace, cultural itferchees pose greaier ditficullies for Leanslation than linguistic iflenences ala. Howe problems:Some expressions ii because they come: within specific cultures. may use the expressions to-express his satinta in the arubic expresst Arib who lives in desired, However, for my use (he expressio my heart). Thus « different linguistic Meaning. we as c beiycen cwlture an language. The liter thal ane syntacti forms, but also a systent of ides his peculiar to i Culture and language are closely related, Wn is throug! language that culture is mainly expressed. whereay we nv nictaphoricully say, culture eariches and nourishes the that carries it, Consequently, the absence of cultural bickgroun Knowledge of «test muy tesirict the possibility af sn adequ translation, As is held by Cary (1958). the Iinguistie conte anstitutes the primarymatertal af the granshition process. [ts th complex costext of the relation beiween two cultures, tw thoughts which characterizes transkation. Earlier and more modem yiews and theories in- general, taken as a whole. consider translation as ai inter! Iry 1p which draws upor such fields ay linguistics, progmatics psycholinguistics, ete. This stems from the notion stresses! man fintes by transl as well ay extrali translation, ‘Translation, therefore, should he wiewed as cn al embracing ans multi-dimensional process,BIBLIOGRAPHY: Cary. Edmoral-( £988)" Comment faut-il traduire” teours de Funiversite Radiophanique Intentatienile) Catford, JC. 1965) AL ford University Press. London. Comrie. Bemard (YNE) Lt ypology, Basil Blanekwell, Ostont, Bussart. Andre 1977)" Lic tational wees PI 2 918. TLL Brussels, RTH. LR. (19560 “Lingwistig Analysis aul pr Roraan Jakobsson, Tie hagtic _ Gregory, Mu. (Ys) "Perspectives on ‘Translation from the Finnian in; Meta vail, 230 4 ype 485-406 Letevre, Ap 970) "The Traitslation of Lit Approaclr” in: Babel vol, }n 2/1970 pp TS80 Mounia, G juction Galli istic Theory of ‘Translation Universals and tin: suistic ie duns impasse” in: Hqu anslition™ ms tines AW ye (1963) Les problemes theoriques: de: be sar, Paris Mounin, George (19701 Ling Mardages, Brusselles wistiquie et trackaction Dessamt & Newrnark. Peter (1982) Approaches tot Press, Oxtonl Nidhi. Bugene (1964) Vawaurd pal. Brill. Pinehuck, 1.11977) Scivntitic and Technical Transl Deursh, Lonilon station! Pergamen ienee of Tratskition Leiden, n Andre: Popovie, An Tramstation An, TO)" The Concept of sin" in: LS. Holmes teat The Nature of “Transtation hift oof Expressi¢in’ im _- aPregnier, M, message: ieaning: “Teatslation’ : Gerver, Diet ‘Communieation, Plenum Pr Vinay, 1P, & Darbel Prangais et del Antglais, Di