Session 2

Western Translation Theories- Antiquity to Early Twentieth

Century
Dr. Sonali Lakhera
The vastness of the discipline makes it impossible to trace the entire history of Translation

comprehensively. Hence, an effort has been made in this module to introduce few landmark

translations of each era from antiquity to contemporary times, with respect to the major theories

in the field. George Steiner’s famous work After Babel divides the literature based on theory,

practice and history into following periods

1. From Cicero and Horace up to the publication of Fraser Tytler’s Essay on the Principles of

Translation. This period is characterized by the theories emerging from the direct practice

of translation.

2. End of the first period to the publication of Larbaud’s Sous I’invocation de Saint Jerome

in 1946.The important feature of this theory is the development of a vocabulary and

methodology of approaching translation.

3. From the publication of the first papers on machine translation in 1940s. This period shows

the introduction of linguistics and communication theory in the field of translation.

4. Originating in 1960s with the interdisciplinary approach of translation studies.

Beginning with Rener’s building block theory of language, it discusses “Grammar” and “Rhetoric”

as translator’s tools. (Robinson 5). According to this theory, the translator begins with minute

elements and gradually builds them up into complex grammatical structures. Rhetoric is then

added to create an impact on the readers. This classical theory of translation calls grammar as the

“Translator’s basic set of tools” and rhetoric as “Translator’s Tools in Ornamentation” (Robinson,

5). Beginning with the word for word theory practiced by early translators, the product would
sometimes result in a very awkward version of the Source Text. The ancient translations consisted

of translating Greek literature into Latin, which was “an act of submission that caused awkward

lexical Graecisms to enter into the translations” (Friedrich 1992, 12). Gradually the translators

realized the true meaning of translation as the transformation of the source text to adapt it to the

target linguistic structure without strictly adhering to the structure of the source language. Major

translators of this period were Cicero and Horace. Rener’s theory however does not apply

universally and there have been innumerable notable translators who did not follow this approach.

For instance, Rener does not take into consideration the women translators/writers in his study of

the translators and their practices. Rener has completely ignored translators and theorists like

Charles Homer, Marie- Therese, Ann Dacier, Cooke sisters, Aphra Behn, Katherine Philips, and

many more.

The influential theorists of the Seventeenth century were John Denham, Dolet, Abraham Cowley

and John Dryden. This era focused on the translation of poetry a genre that is most difficult for

translations. Dryden with numerous notable translations contributed the concepts of metaphrase,

paraphrase and imitation to the field of translation studies, which can be understood as

Metaphrase: word by word, and sentence by sentence rendering of the source text into target

language.

Paraphrase: Also known as “Translation with latitude” renders sense for translation without

strictly adhering to the exact words in the source text.

Imitation: here the translator experiences a degree of freedom,” not only to vary from the words

and sense, but to forsake them both as he sees occasion” (Dryden 1992, 17)
Dryden however denounces the first category i.e. metaphrase or ‘word for word’ translation as the

most inferior kind.

Dolet outlined five principles in the order of precedence to carry out the activity of translation.

According to him the translator must

a. Have Perfect understanding of the sense and material of the original author feeling free to

clarify the obscurities.

b. Have Complete knowledge of SL and TL

c. Avoid word for word renderings.

d. Avoid unusual forms

e. Assemble and liaise words eloquently to avoid clumsiness. (Introducing Translation

Studies 43)

Alexander Frazer Tytler in his famous essay on the Principles of Translation (17900 built upon

Dolet’s principle and laid down three general laws of translation:

1. The translator 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 the original.

3. The translator should have all the ease of the original composition.

Tytler’s first two laws exhibit a different opinion about the translations – one focusing on the

fidelity of content (word for word) and the other on the fidelity to form (sense for sense). The study

reveals that the 17th century translators talked about imitation and paraphrase the 18th century

theorists stressed on the re-creation of the source.

Translation Theory of the nineteenth and early twentieth century

In this period, the translators focused on the status of the ST and the form of the TL. Newman and

Arnold being the two great critics and translators put forward their methods of “Foreignness in

translation” and “transparent translation” respectively. While Newman believed in archaic

translation as the pure form of translation, Arnold advocated transparent translation method

advising the target audience to put faith in the translator who is qualified and holds the literary

merit to compare the effect of TT to ST. Both the theorist consciously or unconsciously ended up

in devaluing the translated texts, as according to them the translated version could never match the

Source text.

Contemporary Translation Theories:

1. Equivalence

Before delving into the theory of equivalence we must understand the three types of translations

explained by Roman Jakobson in his paper ‘On linguistic aspects of translation’ (2004).

1. Intra –Lingual Translations: Substituting the signs of a language with the Synonyms of

the same language as is the case in paraphrasing.

2. Inter- Lingual Translations: Substituting the signs of one language with those of the

other.

3. Inter Semiotic translations: Substituting the signs of one sign system with those of the

other. An example of this could be cinematic adaptation of the written texts.

It is case of Interlingual translations that we will study the theory of equivalence. JAkobson starts

with explaining the structure of sign in a language as deduced by Saussure – a notable structuralist.

According to Saussure, every language is nothing but a system of signs. Hence, sign becomes the

unit of language. A sign in turn is constituted of two components –

Signifier: the spoken and written signal

Signified: the concept that a signifier defines, identifies, points to or denotes.

For example the collection of alphabets ‘o’ ‘c’ ‘w’ arranged as cow forms a signifier which points

to the actual animal cow or the concept of cow. Saussure further explains that the language is

arbitrary because the signs are arbitrary and have no inherent reason for the nomenclature. A cow

is galled ‘Gai in Hindi, vache in French, Kuh in German and dhenu in Sanskrit. All signs- Gai,

vache, kuh, and dhenu point to the same animal (signified).

Jakobson considers the problem of equivalence in meaning between the words (code units) in

different languages. He points out that a complete equivalence between code-units is impossible.

For example, cheese (pressed curd) has no exact equivalent in Hindi. The sign is substituted with

paneer, which does not resemble cheese exactly and comes closer to cottage cheese. He advises

the substitution of entire message from SL to TL rather than substituting the unit codes so that the

effect of the translated message is the same as that of the source message. Therefor for a message

to be ‘equivalent’ in ST and TT, the code units may be different since they belong to different sign

systems (languages).

Popovic in his definition of translation discusses four types of equivalence:

Linguistic equivalence- When the SL and TL are homogenous at the linguistic level.
Eg: Word for word
Paradigmatic translaton - When the SL and TL are equivalent on the elements of Grammar.
equivalence
Popovic considers this as a higher category than lexical equivalence.

Stylistic equivalence – The elements in the Source text and the target text or translated text
exhibits functional equivalence. This aims at expressing the idea without transforming the meaning
at the slightest.

Textual equivalence – This refers to the equivalence in the form and shape (syntagmatic
structuring) of the SL and the SL.
Eugene Nida and the theory of equivalence: Nida bases his theory on his major works Toward

a Science of Translation (1969), The Theory, and Practice of Translation. (1964). He distinguishes

between formal and dynamic equivalence on the basis of form and content of the SL and TL and

ST and TT.

Formal equivalence: the translation adhering to formal equivalence focusses its attention on the

message both in terms of form. It is the quality of translation in which the features of the form of

the source text have been mechanically reproduced in the Target language > the translatot

attempting formal equivalence takes the source language closer towards the target culture rather

than adjusting to the target culture and target language. In such a case the translator would avoid

joining or splitting the sentences, break paragraphs or use punctuations at her/his will and will

make dire attempt to preserve these details in the TT as they appeared in the ST. This however

often leads to distortion of the message if the SL and TL are not compatible enough and vary

largely on the grounds of grammar, semantics and lexicons.

Dynamic equivalence: Based on the principle of equivalent effect, it aims at evoking the same

response from the target audience and the translated text as source text could evoke in its readers

and in the source culture. This involves a threefold process of Analysis, Transfer and

Restructuring. This would entail substituting obscure SL items with more appropriate TL items

thus rendering the linguistically implicit information more explicitly in the TL. Snell and Hornby

give an example of such type of equivalence in context of the Bible translation where the phrase

‘lamb of God’ has been converted into ‘seal of God’ in an Eskimo language translation. The aim

is not only to inform the readers but also to present a relevant message.
Susan Bassnett suggests that the equivalence in translation should not be approached as a quest for

sameness as even the two TT in the same languages cannot be the same, therefor to expect the

sameness in ST and TT in different languages is impossible.

2. Polysystem Theory

Proposed by Itamar Even- Zohar in 1978 considers the translation a literary system in a polysystem

of literature. The term polysystem can be visualized as a stratified conglomerate of interconnected

elements, which changes and mutates as these elements interact with one another. There is a

continuous tension between various literary models, genres, and traditions, as a consequence of

which the literary polysystem evolves. The accepted canonized literature at the centre of the

polysystem attempts to retain its centrality whereas other innovative and younger literature

attempts to replace the canonized literature at the Centre. In this literary polysystem, translation

occupies the peripheral position but can attain an influential one depending on various factors and

practices.