Introducing translation studies

First attested around 1340, it derives either from Old French translation or more directly from the
Latin translatio («transporting»), coming from the participle of the verb transferre («to carry over»).
Carry meanings and words. Monday reminds that we can look at translation as:

- Phenomenon - Product - Process

Source text (ST) >>>>>>>>>>>> Target text (TT)

Source language (SL) >>>> Target language (TL)
Jeremy Monday offers a definition of the process of translation:
“The process of translation between two different written languages involves the changing of an
original written text (source text => ST) in the original verbal language (source language => SL)
into a written text (target text => TT) in a different verbal language (target language => TL)”.
The ST => TT configuration is the most prototypical of «interlingual translation» ⇒ Coined by
Jakobson, father of structuralism. Everything is structural, every element acquire value through the
relations with this organic whole, they don’t have a function on their own.
In his seminal paper «On Linguistic Aspects of Translation» (1959), Russo-American linguist
Roman Jakobson (1896-1982) described three categories of translation:

- Intralingual translation, or ‘rewording’ – ‘an interpretation of verbal signs by means

of other signs of the same language’, paraphrasing.
- Interlingual translation, or ‘translation proper’ – ‘an interpretation of verbal signs by
means of some other language’.
- Intersemiotic translation, or ‘transmutation’ – ‘an interpretation of verbal signs by
means of signs of non-verbal sign systems’, implies a change in the sign system

A. Pym defines the translation process as a process that implies the identitication of a problem
(translation is problem solving), we think of possible solutions, and then we choose the best one.
Example: Chinese word, Guanxi = ‘connection’, ‘relation’, ‘relationship’, ‘social network’. No direct
equivalent in the target language. When facing this kind of translation problem:

1. Connection/Social network’ => Translation should make things understandable to the target
culture (but: we lose the Chinese specificity)
2. Guanxi (leave the term as it is) => Translation has to move the reader towards the text (but:
readers might not understand). Implies that the reader should make an effort to look the
meaning up; expose the reader to a different culture.
 3. Guanxi + explanation => Translation should explain the source culture (but: the gloss might
be awkward). Less radical, it’s a bit of a compromise. Intra or extra textual gloss added.
4. English equivalent => Translation should re-situate everything in the target culture (but:
cultural appropriation). Eradicate the term from its context and root it in the target context.

All these options are valid and acceptable, but they might be the best depending on the text, the
target audience → source-oriented approach (orientato al testo di partenza), leave the word as it is
if I know the target audience is made of experts on the subject that will know what I’ll be talking
about. If I know the text will be read by a general public, I might think of a more target-oriented
(orientato al testo di arrivo) solution, that will make the text less obscure. It all depends on several
variables.
Theory can be very useful when translating ⇒ in a way, we are theorizing when we translate.
Theorize means trying to identify a possible solution for a single translation problem. More theories
give us more options. Some awareness of different theories might help when confronting problems
for which there are no established solutions.

The discipline of translation studies emerged in recent times, between the ‘70s and the ‘80s.
however, it has always been present in culture, especially in religious contexts. St. Jerome was the
author of the first translation of the Bible from Greek into Latin. We can also mention Cicero.
The last century saw the emerging of a more academic interest towards translation. It was very
much used to learning languages (the communicative approach did not exist → grammar translation
was used even in schools to teach and learn languages). The grammatical rules and structures of
foreign languages were practised through the translation of a series of usually unconnected and
artificially constructed sentences.
Translation workshops emerged in the 1960s in the USA, exchanging and discussing translation
choices. Also comparative literature, where literatures are studied and compared transnationally and
transculturally, which involves the reading of translated works.
Contrastive linguistics – the study of two languages in contrast – also focused on translation as a
subject of research.
In the 1950s and 1960s a more systematic, linguistic-oriented approach to translation started to
emerge.

The first scholar who is considered the founder of translation studies is James S. Holmes. In his
paper «The Name and Nature of Translation Studies», James S. Holmes put forward an overall
framework describing what translation covers. The framework was presented by Israeli scholar
Gideon Toury as in the following figure:

Pure Translation Studies:

1. Theoretical branch = aims at defining theoretical principle in order to predict phenomenon

related to translation.
a. General = translation as a human activity, interested in finding the law that defines it.
b. Partial = restricted to code.
i. Medium => written vs. spoken translation; machine vs. human translation.
ii. Area ⇒ specific languages and/or cultures.
iii. Rank ⇒ text-level analysis (word/sentence).
iv. Text-type ⇒ (literary/technical).
v. Time ⇒ history of translation.
vi. Problem ⇒ categories of problems (i.e. world play).
2. Descriptive branch = product oriented, studies translation in real settings.

APPLIED T.S concern applications to the practice of translation

1. Translator training: teaching methods.

2. Translation aids: dictionaries, ecc.
3. Translation criticism: evaluation of translation (marking of student translations/review of
published translations)

This branch is a bit underdeveloped here, so a further expansion was proposed later.
 So what is translation? Discipline, interdiscipline or multidiscipline?
Translation has undergone several paradigm shifts, brought about by the encounter and
infiltrations by other studies = cultural studies, gender studies, postcolonial studies. It’s a hybrid
space. It has potential to entertain relationships with different studies.

- A true interdiscipline (…) is an entity that exists in the interstices of the existing fields,
dealing with some, many or all of them. It is the Phoenician trader among the settled
nations (McCarty 1999)
- Translation Studies has the potential for a relationship with: linguistics, modern
languages and language studies, comparative literature, cultural studies (gender/post-
colonial studies), philosophy (of language and meaning)
- Some current projects are also multidisciplinary, involving the participation of
researchers from various disciplines.

14/10/2025

The Basic concepts of early translation theory

Foreignization and domestication = Venuti.

WORD-FOR-WORD VS SENSE-FOR-SENSE
The dichotomy between “word-for-word" and "sense-for-sense” translation dominated translation
theory. It was a recurring theme «emerging again and again with different degrees of emphasis in
accordance with differing concepts of language and communication.
The first to put forward a definition for this dichotomy was Cicero, who defined this duality as
“translating ut intepres” or “translating ut orator”.

“And i did not translate them as a interpreter, but as an orator, keeping the same ideas and forms, or as one might
say, the ‘figures’ of thought, but in language which conforms to our usage. And in so doing, I did not hold it
necessary to render word for word, but I preserved the general style and force of the language”.

He was for translating sense for sense.

St. Jerome’s (patron saint of translators) approach while translating (he translated the Latin vulgat
bible): “Now I not only admit but freely announce that in in translating from the Greek – except of
course in the case of the Holy Scripture, where even the syntax contains a mystery – I render not
word-for-word, but sense-for-sense”. He had a mixed approach, in different situations. When
translating the bible he privileged a more faithful approach.

Dichotomy also present in the eastern traditions. Dao’an (religious leader who directed a vast
translation programme of Buddhist sutras from Sanskrit into Chinese) ⇒ observed the existence of a
dilemma: whether to make a polished and shortened version for the Chinese public (target oriented)
or a faithfully but unreadable translation.

“the dilemma which ever faced Buddhist translators: whether to make a free, polished and shortened version
adapted to the taste of the Chinese public, or a faithful, literal, repetitious and therefore unreadable translation”

XIV century, language and translation acquired new importance because of the power struggle
between Latin and vernacular languages. Latin had a stranglehold over knowledge and religion until
challenged by the Humanist movement. The Protestant Reformation also challenged the hegemony
of Latin through the translation of the Bible into vernacular languages.
Translators were charged with heresy by the inquisition because they didn’t translate faithfully
enough (Luter, Erasmus, Tyndale, Dolet).

Martin Luther → translated both the new and the Old Testament into east central German.
Criticized for adding the adverb allein, ‘only’. «Therefore, we hold that man is justified without the
works of the law, only through faith». Implicating that fate is sufficient without the works. In his
opinion it made the target text more idiomatic, that is what an east central German would have written.
Luther said that he used allein for emphasis, as in «pure, clear German». He privileged a more sense-
for-sense approach.
 Dolet managed to give contributions to the translation debate by outlining 5 principles. Also
Dryden, Tytler and Fu tried to give a more systematic theory.
DOLET → 1540, he defined 5 principles, in order of importance.

1. Translators must perfectly understand the source text, the sense and material of the
original author, although he should feel free to clarify obscurities.
2. Should have perfect knowledge of both the target and the source language, linguistically
competent, so as not to lessen the majesty of the language.
3. Should avoid world for world renderings.
4. Avoid Latinate and unusual words that may sound unnatural.
5. His aim is to assemble and liaise words eloquently to avoid clumsiness.

DRYDEN = naturalizing approach, first English poet laureate. important step forward in translation
theory with «deliberate, reasoned statement, unmistakable in their purpose and meaning. Defined 3
categories in the preface of his translation of Ovid’s Epistles:

1. Metaphrase = corresponds to word-for-word and line by line, literal translation.

2. Paraphrase = translation with latitude, the author is kept in view by the translator, so as never
to be lost, but his words are not so strictly followed as its sense (this involves changing whole
phrases). Free translation, sense-for-sense.

Definitions are becoming more nuanced, not just black or white.

3. Imitation =forsaking both words and sense; this corresponds to what today might be
understood as adaptation, very free rendition.

ALEXANDER FRASER TYTLER = he wrote an essay in 1791, Essay on the principles of

translation. First comprehensive and systematic study of translation. “A good translation is oriented
towards the target language reader”. Defined 3 laws (in order of importance):
 1. A translation should transfer a content faithfully. Should give a complete transcript of the
ideas of the original work. Faithfulness to content.
2. The style and manner of writing should be of the same character of the source text with that
of the original. Faithfulness to form.
3. The translation should have all the ease of the original composition.

YAN FU = Preface to Yán Fù’s translation of Thomas Huxley’s Evolution and Ethics defined 3
translation principles:

1. Xin = fidelity / faithfulness / trueness.

2. Dà = fluency / expressiveness / intelligibility / comprehensibility.
3. Va = elegance / gracefulness.

FRIEDRICH SCHLEIERMACHER = in 1813 he gave a lecture on the different methods of

translating. Influenced by Romanticism, he expounded his approach to interpretation, based not on
absolute truths, but on individual feelings and understanding. He distinguished between 2 types of
translations:

- Dolmetscher = commercial texts.

- Übersetzer= scholarly and artistic texts.

Favours a foreignizing approach. Move the reader towards the writer. He tries to define the
translator dilemma. There are only two paths open to the “true” translator:

“Either the translator leaves the writer in peace as much as possible and moves the reader toward him, or he leaves
the reader in peace as much as possible and moves the writer toward him”

ALIENATING OR FOREIGNIZING APPROACH

His aim is “to give the reader through the translation the impression he would have received reading
the words in the original language”, he should preserve the linguistic and cultural features of the
source text. His preferred strategy is to move the reader towards the writer. Venuti takes inspiration
from him and his thoughts.
The translator must adopt an “alienating” / foreignizing method of translation. The value of the
foreign is emphasized and the TL is bent to ensure faithfulness to the ST. The TT can be faithful to
the sense and sound of the ST and can import foreign concepts.

GEORGE STEINER = XX century, After Babel. Schleiermacher’s influence has been huge on him.
Introduced a new hermeneutic approach. Communication relies on understanding, and
understanding can only be achieved through translation process. The essence of translation is
understanding, and Translation is an interpretative act. 4 step process:

1. Trust = the translator has to trust that the source text is valuable. Stresses the initiative of the
translator, who judges that a ST carries meaning, which makes translation valuable.
2. Aggression = the translator has to intrude upon the source text and penetrate it (translation as
an invasion). Penetration necessary to investigate a text and to understand all possible nuances
and subtleties of meaning that needs to be conveyed.
a. Language used defined as sexist by the feminist movement.
3. Incorporation = the translators carries the extracted meaning into the target language.
4. Compensation = the translator tries to rectify any damage caused to the ST and make up for
any losses that might have occurred in the translation process.

We have seen how much of the theory of translation (…) pivots monotonously around undefined
alternatives: ‘letter’ or ‘spirit’, ‘word’ or ‘sense’».
Translation theory in the second half of the twentieth century attempted to redefine these concepts
in operational terms, to describe «meaning» in scientific terms and to put together systematic
taxonomies of translation phenomena.
15/10/25

J. L. MALONE’S TRANSLATION STRATEGIES

1988, The Science of Linguistics in the Art of Translation: offered tools for translation analysis. 9/10
strategies (the first, carry-over-matching, doesn’t really imply translation. Carrying the foreign
element to the target language). 8 of them are in pair, they are mirror images of each other.

1) Carry-over matching = doesn’t imply translation. Carrying over the target text, without
translating. Is obtained when the source element “is not translated into the TL but merely
carried over as such into the TT”.
2) Equation (literal translation) ⇒ the target text equivalent is the closest text possible to the
source text. Most obvious example, loan words or calque (when the target language adapts a
term to its morpho-phonological structure). It means that a term/phrase/sentence should be
translated by its one-to-one equivalent.
3) Substitution = antithesis of equation. It occurs when the literal translation is not possible, it
implies manipulation, recreation of the source text (idioms and proverbs).
 4) Divergence = choosing a suitable term from a range of alternatives. One term can have many
relations to its target equivalence, one-to-many.
5) Convergence = opposite of divergence. The relation is many-to-one, many converge towards
1 equivalent.
6) Amplification = Sometimes some elements are taken for granted in the SL and ST. Faithful
rendition might result obscure in the target language → a target reader may not posses the
same background knowledge to the source reader. Adding an intratextual gloss to help the
reader understand. Provides the target audience with extra explicit information not required
for the source audience. In order to make the text clear.
7) Reduction = omitting some information that could sound redundant, obscure, useless,
misleading. I may rely on the target readers background knowledge.
8) Diffusion (the difference with amplification/reduction is the amount of information
conveyed: here it’s the same) ⇒ I am obliged to expand my target text, not in order to give
extra information, but because the two language behaves differently, one language may need
more words to express the same concept as the other language. They are concerned with
linguistically bund reason. The information conveyed is the same. There is no direct concise
equivalent, so the target text needs to be expanded.
9) Condensation = Sometimes, Italian can be more concise than English and some concept may
be conveyed with a single word. The reasons, though, are linguistic.
o Diffusion and condensation are concerned with more linguistically bound reason.
10) Reordering = similar to substitution but concerns syntax. It’s when the word order is
manipulated, modified, because the two languages work differently. It’s not always allowed
nor possible.

To sum up:
1) Carry-over matching does not imply translation.
2) Equation suggests automatic equivalence.
3) Substitution is used when automatic equivalence is impossible.
4) Divergence is a one-to-many relationship.
5) Convergence is a many-to-one relationship.
6) Amplification requires the addition of elements for clarity.
7) Reduction requires the elimination of elements ⇒ redundancy.
8) Diffusion requires the addition of elements without giving extra-information.
9) Condensation calls for a contraction of the source text (linguistic reasons).
10) Reordering refers to comparative syntax.
 21/10

Equivalence

The concept of equivalence is based on the idea that something we say in one language can have
the same value as its translations into other languages. Equivalence is a relation of “equal value”
between a source text and a target text.
Many had doubts about it ⇒ structuralists = elements in a language take on meaning through the
relations with other elements in the same organic whole, systems (language). The relations between
linguistic items were seen as “structures” and languages were sets of structures, hence different
systems. Sapir and Whorf formulated a hypothesis according to which different language shape
different conceptualization of the world.
The consequence of this view of language systems is linguistic relativity and linguistic determinism.

11) Linguistic relativity = structural differences between languages, organic

whole/structures/systems, will be paralleled by non-linguistic cognitive differences in the native
speakers of these languages.
12) Linguistic Determinism = the structure of a given language influences and even shapes the
perception of the world of the native speakers of said languages.

The consequence of both, full linguistic relativity, is untranslatability, translation is not possible if
there is no equivalent, if the languages diverge.
Linguistic universalism = languages do differ, but these differences are superficial. Although
languages may differ in the way they convey meaning and in the surface realizations of that meaning,
there is an underlaying way of conceptualizing and experiencing the world. George Mounin noted
that “And yet translators exist, they produce, and their products are found to be useful”. Translation
occurs in all sorts of contexts and between all sorts of language pair.

Roman Jakobson, a structuralist, considered the problems of linguistic meaning and equivalence ⇒
equivalence IN meaning between words in different languages. Observed that there is no ordinarily
full equivalence between code-units.
But also, interlingual translation involves “substituting messages in one language not for separate
code-units, but for entire messages in some other language”. Equivalence is possible if we don’t look
at separate code-units.
 TRANSFORMATION-BASED EQUIVALENCE
Paradoxically, a theory of equivalence is based on transformation.
A theory of equivalence concern the way translators CHANGE texts. It doesn’t suppose that alla
language somehow correspond to each other in a one-to-one way. Most discussion around
equivalence actually concert cultural differences.
The idea of equivalence says that a translation can have the same value as some aspect of a
corresponding source text. Sometimes the value is on the level of form (two words translated by two
words), sometimes it is function. It may be sought at the level of the function, of the sentence. Equal
value can be achieved on one level or another.

John Catford = equivalence need not to be on all language levels at one. Equivalence is rank bound.
You might strive for equivalence to the sounds of a text, to a word, a phrase, a sentence, to a function.
These levels at which equivalence can be achieved are called ranks.
Russian linguist Leonid Barkhudarov added that something in the two texts must remain the same
and is thus INVARIANT. If there is no invariant, the text is simply not a translation.

Meaning, equivalence and translatability became a constant theme of translation studies in the
1960s.
Eugine Nida = fundamental contributions to the debate around meaning and equivalence, one of the
founder of the modern discipline of Translation Studies. He provided the translator with a 3-stage
technique for decoding the ST and a procedure for endoding the TT.

o Analyse the text and decode it.

o Transfer
o Restructure and reencode the text into the target language.

Some theorists elaborate on the concept of transfer, introducing the concept of tertium
comparationis ⇒ equivalence is a relation to something that stand outside the source and the target
text. It’s a quality which remains the same, that the translator needs to catch; a kernel of meaning
common to both languages. The translator has to go from the ST to this kernel, then from this kernel
to the corresponding TT. Translator therefore need to DEVERBALIZE to the to the sense that can be
expressed in all languages. When full equivalence is not given. This notion forms the basis for the
theory of sense ⇒ natural equivalence.
Anthony pym = the conceptualization of equivalence has taken two paths:
 1) Natural equivalence = supposes that correspondence between languages exist a priori, prior
to translating, because there is some common ground between languages.
o Some theories assume pre-existing equivalents and are thus concerned with a search
for natural equivalence: “Correspondence existed in some way prior to the act of
translation”.
2) Directional equivalence = translators actively create equivalents. Translation goes from one
side (Source text/culture) to the other (target text/culture), with the target text replacing the
source text in the target context.

EUGENE NIDA
Words have no fixed established meaning; it can change according to the circumstances and can
generate varying responses according to culture. Meaning can be linguistic / referential / emotive-
connotative.
There is an enduring dichotomy that has characterized translations, word-for-word/sense-for-sense.
He proposes it as for formal and dynamic equivalence.

1. Formal equivalence = Focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. The
message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements
in the source language
a. Source oriented approach – accuracy – correctness.
2. Dynamic equivalence = Based on the “principle of equivalent effect” = “the relationship
between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between
the original receptors and the message”
a. Produce on my target reader the same effect that the source text produced on the
source reader. “Complete naturalness of expression”.
b. Target orientedness. The foreignness of the ST is minimized.

The notion of equivalent effect was groundbreaking but also subject to criticism. Scholars wondered
how this effect could be measured, how could it have the same effect when time changes. How does
a translator determine who the audience is or what the ST’s author’s intention was.
PETER NEWMARK tried to elaborate on the topic and respond to criticism. Put forward 2
distinctions, semantic translation and communicative translation.

1. “Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible

to that obtained on the reader of the original.
 2. Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures
of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original.

Newmark’ semantic translation differs from literal, word-for-word translation as it «respects

context», interprets and even explains. He privileged a semantic translation as long as equivalent
effect is achieved. “In communicative as semantic translation, provided that the equivalent effect is
achieved, the literal word-for-word translation is not only the best, it is the only valid method of
translation”. Literal translation when possible, more semantic translation, as long as the equivalent
effect is achieved.
Literal word-for-word translation minimizes our effort, optimizes the efficiency of the translating
process, by concentrating energy on especially difficult problems, and by devoting less effort to those
part of the text which can be adequately rendered following a literal procedure. BUT when a
semantic/literal translation would result in an unnatural TT, then the communicative translation
should be preferred. When it’s not necessary, a more loyal translation should be preferred.

NEWMARK VS NAIDA
Communicative translation reminds us of dynamic equivalence, in the effect it is trying to create on
the TT reader; semantic translation is similar to formal equivalence.
Newmark distances himself from the principle of equivalent effect, and tried to respond to criticism
by noting that the principle of equivalent effect is inoperant if the text is out of TL space and time.

VIRTUES OF EQUIVALENCE BASE THEORY

In a context where structuralism seemed to make translation theoretically impossible, theories of
equivalence defended translation as a vital social practice, overcoming untranslatability.
Notion of an identical value, of a full correspondence, may seem idealistic. But it’s also true that
equivalence is what we are pursuing.
Equivalence as a controlled transformation means that translators often have a broad range of
possible renditions to chose from.
In 2020, “the notion of equivalence still plays an essential role in most translation theories” – Anne
Schjoldager.

Naida influences some German scholars, in particular Koller elaborated on the concept of
equivalence, together with the notion of correspondence.
 1) Correspondence has to do with what Saussure defined as langue. Falls within the field of
contrastive linguistics, which compares two languages systems and describes differences and
similarities.
2) Equivalence has to do with the parole, equivalence in specific language pairs, ST-TT pairs.
Relates to equivalent items in specific pairs and translation.

While knowledge of correspondence is indicative of competence in the foreign language,

knowledge of equivalences is indicative of competence in translation. What has to be equivalent?
5 types of equivalence relations, constrained in double linkage by the ST on the one hand and by
communicative conditions of the receiver on the other (Koller):

1. Denotative = translator wants to convey and preserve a denotative equivalence, the same
content. Sameness of referential meaning.
2. Connotative = may wants to preserve connotative equivalence, lexical choices.
3. Text-normative = adherence to the genre textual conventions.
4. Pragmatic (communicative) = similar to the dynamic equivalence, focus on the target readers
needs.
5. Formal = related to the form, aesthetic, stylistic features (wordplay, puns).

Equivalence based theories

Theories of equivalence allow us to ask how translators can produce texts tht in some respects share
values with previous texts in ther languages.
Translators attempt to achieve equivalence by using different procedures, techniques, strategies, etc.
Basic recurring opposition between literal translation and free translation.

LITERAL VS FREE

13) Gideon Toury = acceptable vs adequate.

14) Lawrence Venuti = fluent vs resistant.
15) Jiří Levý = illusory vs anti-illusory.
16) Juliane House = covert vs overt.
17) Christiane Nord = instrumental vs documentary.
 Literal means sticking as close as possible to the ST, adjusting for syntax and lexis.
At which point does the translation become free? Both literal and free translation include different
ways of translating, why the binarism?

VINAY AND DALBERNET’S MODEL

Comparative stylistic of French and English: a methodology for translation. Examined texts in both
French and English, noting differences between the two and identifying different trnsaltion
“strategies” and “procedures”.

18) Strategy = an overall orientation of the translation (eg. Towards ‘free’ or ‘literal’).
19) Procedure = a specific technique or method used by the transaltor at a certain point in a text.

Two general translation strategies and seven procedures.

1) Direct translation (literal translation): 2) Oblique translation (free translation)

a) Loan / borrowing a) Transposition
b) Calque b) Modulation
c) Literal translation c) Correspondence / equivalence
d) Adaptation

1 2a. LOAN / BORROWING = the SL word is transferred directly to the TL.

12b. CALQUE = a “specific kind of borrowing” where the SL expression or structure is transferred
in a literal translation. These words and expressions sometime become integrate into the TL
with some semantic change, which can even turn them into false friends.
12c. LITERAL TRANSLATION = “word-for-word” translation.
- Vinay and Dlbernet’s prescription for good transaltion. BUT the translator may judge
literal translation unacceptable for grammatical / syntactic / pragmatic reasons. When
literal translation is not possible → oblique translation.

2a. TRANSPOSITION = a change of one part of speech for another (noun for verb) without
changing the sense. Probably the most common structural change undertaken by translators.
- Obligatory.
- Optional.
 2b. MODULATION = it changes the semantics of the text. (Obligatory / Optional). Justified
“when, although a literal translation results in a grammatically correct utterance, it is
considered unsuitable, unidiomatic or awkward in the TL.”
2c. EQUIVALENCE / CORRESPONDENCE = languages describe the same situation by
different stylistic or structural means ⇒ idioms / proverbs.
2d. ADAPTATION = involves changing the cultural reference when a situation in the source
culture does not exist in the target culture.
- Special kind of equivalence, situational.

There are many other techniques exemplified by Vinay and Dalbernet, like Amplification and
economy / Explicitation / Compensation / Generalization.

- AMPLIFICATION = the TL uses more words, often because of syntactic expansion.

Opposite, ECONOMY.
- EXPLICITATION = implicit information in the ST is made explicit in the TT. Can occur at
the level of the grammar / semantics.
- Translation inevitably involves some loss = Paul Ricoeur uses an analogy drawn from Freud’s
notion: a good translation must always acknowledge some loss, like a bereavement that has
to be worked through. A TT can however make up for the loss ⇒ COMPENSATION,
introducing a gain at the same or another point in the text.
- GENERALIZATION = the use of a more general word in the TT.

Vinay and Darbelnet described another parameter ⇒ the difference between servitude and option.

1) SERVITUDE = obligatory SL>TL, due to the differences ebtween the two language systems.
2) OPTION = non obligatory shifts due to the translator’s own style and preferences, or to change
in emphasis. decision to amplify or explicate a general term (

The realm of stylistics should be translators’ main concern ⇒ their role is “to choose from among
the available options to express the nuances of the message.”

CATFORD AND ‘TRANSLATION SHIFTS’

A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Translation shifts are ‘deartures from formal correspondence
in the process of going from the SL to the SL’. They are linguistic changes occurring in translation.
The term’ shift’ seems to have been first employed by Catford, even though Vinay and Dalbernet’s
obligatory and non-obligatory changes are, in effect, translation shifts.
 FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE VS TEXTUAL EQUIVALENCE

- Formal correspondent = “any TL category which can be said to occupy, as nearly as

possible, the same place in the economy of the TL as the given SL category occupied in the
SL.
- Textual equivalent = “any TL text or portion of text which is observed on a particular
occasion to be equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text”.

Translation shifts are “departure from formal correspondence in the process of going from the SL
to the TL.”

Stylistic shifts have been investigated in more recent translation theory, because of_

1) A greater interest in the intervention of the translator and their relationship to the ST.
2) The development of new computerized tools to assist analysis.

Giuliana Schiavi: “a reader of translation will receive a sort of split message coming from two
different addressers, both original although in two different senses: one originating from the author
which is elaborated and mediated by the translator, and one (the language of the translation itself)
originating directly from the translator.”

Kirsten Malmkjaer: translational stylistics (2003). How far can the style and intentions of the
translator (rather than the ST author) be recovered from the analysis of the TT?
This kind of analysis has been advanced by corpus-based methods, which have attempted to identify
the «linguistic fingerprint» of the translator by comparing ST and TT choices against large collections
of electronic texts in the SL and TL.

MARKDNESS
These studies investigate various features, one of them being markedness. Relates to a choice of
patterns of choices that stand out as unusual.

Functional theories of translation

NEW APPROACHES
The 1970s and 1980s saw the emergence in Germany of a functionalist and communicative
approach to the analysis of translation. The emergence of functional model marks an official shift
from source text-oriented (which reigned in the period of 1950s – 1960s) to target text-oriented
approaches, which conceptualise translation as a process that takes place within the culture of the
target language.

REISS’ FUNCTIONAL APPROACH

Katharina Reiss’s work* in the 1970s built on the concept of equivalence, but viewed the text, rather
than the word or sentence, as the level at which communication is achieved and at which equivalence
must be sought.

BUHLER’S FUNCTIONS
Reiss’s functional approach is based on the three functions of language by German psychologist and
linguist Karl Bühler (1879-1963):

- Informative function
- Expressive function
- Appellative function.

REISS’S TEXT TYPES

Reiss links Kühler’s functions to the text types in which they are used:

- Informative text type (e.g. encyclopaedia)

- Expressive text type (e.g. novel)
- Operative text type (e.g. advert).

Hybrid text types ⇒ biography ⇒ both informative and expressive.

FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TEXT TYPES → TRANSLATION METHODS

TEXT TYPE Informative Expressive Operative
Language function: Informative = Expressive = Appellative = making
representing objects expressing sender’s an appeal to text
and facts attitude receiver
Language Logical Aesthetic Dialogic
dimension:
Text focus Content-focused Form-focused Appelative-focused
TT should Transmit referential Transmit aesthetic Elicit desired response
content form
 Translation method: ‘Plain prose’, ‘Identifying’ method ‘Adaptive’, equivalent
explicitation as adopt perspective of effect
required ST author

Reiss’s work is important because it considers the communicative function of translation.

Recognition that the TT function can be different from the ST function, e.g. Gulliver’s Travels (1726):
satirical novel ⇒ entertaining novel.

THE TRANSLATIORIAL ACTION MODEL

Justa Holz-Mänttäri proposed the translatorial action model (Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie
und Methode, 1984) which views translation as purpose-driven, outcome-oriented human interaction:

«[It] is not about translating words, sentences or texts but is in every case about guiding the intended co-operation
over cultural barriers enabling functionally oriented communication (1984: 7-8)».

Interlingual translation is a “translatorial action” and a communicative process involving roles and
players, each with their own goals:

- Initiator - TT producer
- Commissioner - TT user
- ST producer - TT receiver.

Example: travel brochure

• Initiator: Company/agency who needs the brochure.
• Commissioner: Person or agency who contacts the translator.
• ST producer: Person within the company/agency or professional who writes the brochure.
• TT producer: Translator.
• TT user: Company/agency who distributes the brochure.
• TT receiver: Tourist.

FOCUS OF TRANSLATORIAL ACTION

• Translatorial action focuses on producing a TT that is functionally communicative for the
receiver: the form and genre of the TT must be guided by what is functionally suitable in the
target culture.
• The translator’s choices need not be dominated by the ST and a search for equivalence.
• The needs of the receiver are the determining factors for the TT.
 STRENGHTS
Translation is placed in its sociocultural context, including the relationship between the translator and
the initiator => It takes into account professional situations and real commercial translation
constraints.
The translator is empowered (in theory): the properly trained translator is the expert in all things
translational and should decide such issues (what happens when there is no clear agreement on the
purpose? Who decides? The translator as the expert in cross-cultural communication).

WEAKNESSES
The model treats translation mainly as a professional service or technical task (idealized view of
professional autonomy).
It neglects the aesthetic, literary, or cultural dimension of translation.
This limits its usefulness for literary or poetic texts.

SKOPOS THEORY
‘Skopos’ (Greek) = aim or purpose (of TT). The term was introduced in the 1970s by Hans J.
Vermeer (1930-2010).
Main work = Reiss and Vermeer’s Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie, 1984 ⇒
Towards a General Theory of Translational Action, 2013. Aim = a general translation theory for all
texts.
The TT (‘Translatum’) must be fit for purpose and functionally adequate. Why is a ST translated?
What is the function of the TT?

TRNALSATIONAL VS TRANSLATORIAL
The term «translatorial» describes the qualities of translators, whereas the term «translational»
describes the qualities of translations.

Rules:

1) A translational action is determined by its skopos = the TT is determined by its purpose.

2) It is an offer of information in a target culture and target language concerning an offer of
information in a source culture and source language = the ST and TT are related to their function
in their linguistic and cultural contexts.
3) A TT does not initiate an offer of information in a clearly reversible way = the function of a TT
in the target culture is not necessarily the same as the ST in the source culture.
4) A TT must be internally coherent (intratextual coherence: the TT should be coherent and
understandable to the TA).
5) A TT must be coherent with the ST (intertextual coherence; the TT should maintain a recognizable
relationship with the ST).
6) The 5 rules above stand in a hierarchical order, with the skopos rule predominating.

MAIN CONTRIBUTION
The most notable contribution of functionalist approaches is the introduction of the concept of
culture into translation, as well as consideration of the norms and conventions of the target language
and of all the players involved in the translation process .
The translator works in a professional context with obligations to people, not just texts.
That frees the translator from the dictatorship of linguistic rules.
Translation decisions involve many factors and texts can be translated in different ways, depending
on their function.

CRITICISM OF REISS AND VERMEER’S THEORY

The dethroning (as Vermeer himself terms it) of the ST both in skopos and in translatorial theory
has caused much controversy: does it mean that anything goes as long as the TT purpose is fulfilled?

CHRISTIANE NORD’S CLARIFICATION

Christiane Nord, another major functionalist: while «functionality is the most important criterion
for a translation», the translator does not have absolute licence (Nord 2005: 31-2).

FUNCTIONALITY + LOYALTY
Nord’s model: «functionality plus loyalty», where loyalty is defined as:

«this responsibility translators have toward their partners in translational interaction. Loyalty commits the
translator bilaterally to the source and target sides. It must not be mixed up with fidelity or faithfulness, concepts
that usually refer to a relationship holding between the source and target texts. Loyalty is an interpersonal category
referring to a social relationship between people».

Franco Buffoni = fidelity/faithfulness vs loyalty

In ogni testo che capisco di voler “tradurre” cerco di individuare l’elemento prevalente, quello irrinunciabile: può
consistere nell’intarsio ritmico-melodico, o nel pensiero nitidamente formulato, oppure nell’illuminazione,
 nell’epifania: quel guizzo, che da solo costituisce il senso profondo del testo. In tal modo, so dove posso
eventualmente compiere un sacrificio. Mia ferma convinzione è che non di “fedeltà” si dovrebbe parlare bensì di
“lealtà”. Il termine fedeltà connota guanciali, lenzuola e sotterfugi; il termine lealtà due occhi che fissando altri
occhi dichiarano amore ammettendo un momentaneo “tradimento”. Sono stato leale alla tua altezza poetica,
tradendoti qui e qui e qui: l’ho fatto per restare il più lealmente possibile alla tua altezza.

MORE CRITICISM
Skopos theory does not pay sufficient attention to the linguistic nature of the ST. Moreover, even if
the skopos is fulfilled, it may be inadequate at the stylistic or semantic levels of individual segments.
Christiane Nord tried to tackle this criticism with her model of translation-oriented text analysis.

TRANLSATION-ORIENTED TEXT ANALYSIS

Nord’s Text Analysis in Translation (1991) presents a more detailed functional model incorporating
elements of text analysis.
First distinction between two types of translation product: documentary translation and instrumental
translation.

Documentary translation = a document of a source culture communication between the author and
the ST recipient” (Nord 2005: 80).
Example: 1) a literary translation where the TT allows the TT receiver access to the ideas of the
ST but where the reader is aware that it is a translation.
Instrumental translation = ‘is intended to fulfil its communicative purpose without the recipient
being conscious of reading or hearing a text which, in a different form, was used before in a different
communicative situation’ (Nord 2005: 80.).The TT receivers read the TT as though it were a ST
written in their own language.
Example: a translated computer manual.

NORD’S MODEL
Text Analysis in Translation (1991) is aimed at providing a model of ST analysis which is applicable
to all text types and translation situations.
Function of the text and appropriate translation strategies.
This model shares the premises of Reiss and Vermeer’s work as well as Holz-Mänttäri’s
consideration of the other players in the translation action, BUT pays more attention to the features
of the ST.
More flexible version: Translating as a Purposeful Activity (1997).
 THREE ASPECTS OF FUNCTIONALIST APPROACHES
In Translating as a Purposeful Activity, Nord highlights three aspects of functionalist approaches
which are particularly useful for translator training:

1) The importance of the translation commission («TRANSLATION BRIEF»)

a) Explicit or implicit.
b) It should give the following information:
i) The intended TT function
ii) The TT recipients
iii) The time and place of text reception
iv) The medium (speech/writing, digital/hard copy)
v) The motive (why the ST is being translated).
2) The role of ST ANALYSIS:
a) Extratextual factors.
i) Function
ii) Sender
iii) ST recipients
iv) Time and place of text production and reception
v) Medium the ST is communicated by
vi) Motive for communication.
b) Intratextual factors:
i) Subject matter
ii) Content
iii) Sentence structure
iv) Lexis
v) Non-verbal elements
vi) Rhythm
vii) Presuppositions = Presuppositions can be defined as background knowledge, implicit
assumptions, or cultural-specific conventions that the sender expects the receiver to share
(Nord 2005: 105). Presuppositions are identified as cultural problems.

St analysis: what for? Is the translation feasible? Which ST items need to be taken into account to
achieve a functional translation? Which are the main translation problems:

- Pragmatic = problems arise from the differences between the ST and the TT situations.
- Cultural = problems arise from culture-specific elements.
 - Linguistic = problems arise from differences in vocabulary, syntax, etc.
- Text-specific = problems are bound to one particular ST.

Translation problems are objective obstacles or challenges inherent in the translation task that arise
from the differences between the source text and the target context. These problems are distinct from
‘difficulties’, which are subjective and depend on the translator’s personal skills or circumstances,
while “translation problems will always remain problems, even when a translator has learnt how to
deal with them rapidly and effectively” (Nord 2018: 60).

3) The functional hierarchy of translation problems.

a) Comparison of the intended functions of the ST and the TT (translation brief) helps to decide
the functional type of translation to be produced: documentary or instrumental.
b) The translation brief determines which elements can be reproduced and which need to be
adapted to the TT receiver’s situation.
c) Translation style:
i) Documentary translation: source-culture oriented
ii) Instrumental translation: target-culture oriented.
d) The problems of the text can then be tackled at a lower linguistic level (see ST analysis).

SYSTEM THEORIES

NEW SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES

Rather than prescribe what a good translation should be like, scientific approaches try to say what
translations are in their various cultural and historical contexts.
Translations are “facts of the target culture”, as opposed to the start culture context ⇒ theories of
equivalence.
Translators’ performances are regulated by collective “norms” based on informal consensus about
what they are expected to produce. Translations scholars began to envisage their own discipline.

1970s ⇒ polysystem theory = translated literature is a system operating in the larger social, literary
and historical systems of the target culture. Translated literature is no longer considered a derivative,
second-rate system.
According to Israeli scholar Itamar even-zohar, literature is part of the social, culture, literary and
historical framework. Within the system there is a dynamic of “mutation” and struggle for the primary
position in the literary canon.
 According to even-zohar, translated literature operates as a system:

1. In the way the target language culture selects works for translation;
2. In the way translation norms / behaviour / policies are influenced by other co-systems.

POLYSYSTEM THEORY
Polysystem = a multiple system, a system of various systems which intersect with each other and
partly overlap, using concurrently different options, yet functioning as one structured whole, whose
members are interdependent.
The intersection and the overlapping of these systems occur in a dynamic hierarchy, changing
according to the historical moment.

The position of translated literature is not fixed, it may occupy a primary or secondary position in
the polysystem.
PRIMARY = it participates actively in shaping the centre of the polysystem. It is innovatory and
linked to major events of literary history. Leading writers produce important translations, which are
a leading factor in the formation of new models for the target culture ⇒ new poetics, new techniques.
When does translated literature occupy the primary position?

1. When a «young» literature is born and looks to more

established literatures for models => Finnish literature: French and
British realist novels.
2. When a literature is «peripheral» or «weak» and imports the
literary types it is lacking => Galicia imports translations from the
dominant Castilian Spanish
3. When there is a critical turning point in literary history and established models are no longer
considered sufficient, so foreign models assume primacy.

SECONDARY = if translated literature assumes a secondary position, it represents a peripheral

system within the polysystem and has no major influence. It can even become conservative,
preserving conventional forms. According to Even-Zohar, the secondary position is the «normal» one
for translated literatures.

Even-Zohar suggests that the position occupied by translated literatures influences the translation
strategy:
 - Primary position ⇒ Translations are more inclined to break conventions and thus produce a
TT that is a close match to the ST in terms of adequacy. The influence of the foreign language
model may itself lead to the production of new models in the TL
- Secondary position ⇒ Translators tend to use existing target-culture models for the TT and
produce more «non-adequate» translations

EDWIN GENTZLER ON POLYSYSTEM THEORY: PRAISE

Edwin Gentzler (2001: 118-20 and 123-5): the polysystem theory represents an important advance
for translation studies

1. Literature is studied alongside social, historical and cultural forces

2. Study of isolated texts => study of translation within the cultural and literary systems
3. Less prescriptive model which allows for variation according to the social, historical and
cultural situation of the text

Gideon toury worked with even-zohar; tried to develop a general theory of translation: Descriptive
Translation Studies – and Beyond.
Translation occupy a position in the social and literary system of the target culture ⇒ they are “facts
of target culture”. DTS (descriptive translation studies) look at what translation “are likely to
involve”.

THREE-PHASE METHODOLOGY FOR SYSTEMATIC DTS

1) Situate the text within the target culture system, looking at its significance or acceptability
2) Undertake a textual analysis of the ST and the TT in order to identify relationships between
corresponding segments in the two texts. Identification of obligatory and non-obligatory
translation shifts
3) Attempt generalizations about the patterns identified in the two texts.

This methodology is replicable ⇒ it has to be repeated for other pairs of texts: the corpus extends
and a descriptive profile of translations can be built according to genre, period, author… The ultimate
aim is to distinguish trends of translation behaviour, to make generalizations regarding the decision-
making of translators and to reconstruct norms.
Translation is governed by norms, generally agreed forms of behaviour = “the translation of general
values or ideas shared by a community as to what would count as right or wrong, adequate or
inadequate – into performance ‘instructions’ appropriate for and applicable to concrete situations”.
 Mona baker = norms are “options that translators in a given socio-historical context select on a
regular basis”.

Norms that have been applied in the translation of a text can be reconstructed from two sources:

1) From the examination of texts, which will reveal regularities of behaviour.

2) From the statements made by translators, publishers, etc.

Initial, preliminary and operational norms

INITIAL NORM
Basic initial norm refers to a general choice made by translators.
They can follow the norms realized in the ST, then the TT will be
adequate, or follow the target culture / language norms, and the
TT will be acceptable. Adequacy and acceptability are on a continuum ⇒ shifts are inevitable. Shifts
can be obligatory (servitude) or non-obligatory (option). The latter are more interesting as they
reveal the choices made by the translator.

PRELIMINARY NORMS
They are: translation policy and directness of translation.

- Translation policy concerns the selection of texts for translation in a specific language,
context and time.
- Directness of a translation relates to whether translation occurs via n intermediate language
(translation of sacred texts).

OPERATIONAL NORMS

- Matricial norms have to do with omission / addition / relocation of passages, with the
addition of footnotes.
- Textual-linguistic norms concern the selection of TT linguistic material (lexical items /
syntactic / stylistic features).

All the decision made in the act of translation.

 If translations can be studies scientifically, the ultimate aim of all research is to discover principles
that can account for all translations. Translation tendencies or universal of translations are features
that tend to be found in translations more than in other kind of texts → Explicitation.

TOURY’S LAWS
Norms are culture specific. Tendencies try to describe the specificity of translation no matter where
and when they are done (cross-cutltural). Toury’s aim was to formulate probabilistic “laws” of
translation.

What is left for laws then? Laws point to probabilistic tendencies that link at leas two variables
(norms and tendencies concern one variable at a time ⇒ translations tend to have x / translations tend
to have x more than non-translations).
Laws = “If x, then the greater/smaller the likelihood of y”.

Toury’s aim was to identify norms so as to formulate probabilistic “laws” of translation. Two laws
of translation = law of growing standardization and law of interference.

LAW OF GROWING STANDARDIZATION

Disruption of the ST patterns in translations and selection of linguistic options that are more
common in the TL ⇒ tendency towards a general standardization and loss of variation in style in the
TT. This is especially the case when the translation is in secondary position.

LAW OF INTERFERENCE
Interference from ST to TT. Interference can be negative when it creates abnormal TT patterns
(calques). It can be positive when ST features are adopted by the translator without creating abnormal
TT patterns. The translation works naturally in the TT as it does in the ST, without any cultural
distortion. It can be negative when the translation result acceptable but award.

Cultural and ideological turns

Cultural studies = a set of academic studies that adopt a critical and theorizing approach to cultural
phenomena in general, emphasizing heterogeneity, hybridity and the critique of power.
“Cultural turn” = phrase proposed by Mary Snell-Hornby and legitimised by A. Lefere and S.
Bassnett whereby translation studies should focus on the cultural effects of translation.
 Cultural translation draws attention to the intermediate position of the translator, the cultural
hybridity that can characterize that position, the cross-cutlrual movements that form the places where
translators work and the problematic nature of the cultural borders crossed by translators.
Translation is seen as a general communicative activity which occurs between cultural groups.

In Translation, History and Culture (1990), Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere dismiss the
linguistic theories of translation which «have moved from word to text as a unit, but not beyond».
They also dismiss the «painstaking comparisons between originals and translations» which do not
consider the text in its cultural environment.
Focus on the interaction between translation and culture (influence, constraints). Issues of «context,
history and convention». term used in translation studies for the

move towards the analysis of translation from a cultural studies

angle. The cultural turn might also be described as an attempt by cultural

studies to colonize the less established field of translation studies.

The phrase “cultural turn” indicates this new orientation and binds together the various case studies
in Bassnett and Lefevere’s collection of essays. These include studies of changing standards in
translation over time, the power exercised in and on the publishing industry in pursuit of specific
ideologies, feminist writing and translation, translation as “appropriation”, translation and
colonization, translation as rewriting.

TRANSLATION AS REWRITING
André Lefevere (1945-1996): Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame
(1992). Lefevere focused on «issues such as power, ideology, institution and manipulation» which
govern the reception, acceptance or rejection of literary texts.
The reason for rewriting literature can be ideological (conforming to or rebelling against the
dominant ideology) or poetological (conforming to or rebelling against the dominant poetics).

“Translation is the most obviously recognizable type of rewriting, and (…) it is potentially the most influential
because it is able to project the image of an author and/or those works beyond the boundaries of their culture of
origin.”

The literary system in which translation operates is controlled by two factors:

1) Professionals within the literary system, who partly determine the dominant poetics: critics,
reviewers, academics, translators.
2) Patronage outside the literary system, which partly determines the ideology: powerful
individuals, groups (publishers, the media…), institutions (national academics, academic
journals, the educational establishment).
 PATRONAGE is characterized by three components:

1. The ideological component has to do with the choice of the subjects.

2. The economic component has to do with the payment of writers and translators.
3. The status component has to do with the return for economic payment: the beneficiary is
expected to conform to the patron’s expectations.

“Institutions enforce or, at least, try to enforce the dominant poetics of a period by using it as a yardstick against
which current production is measured. Accordingly, certain works of literature will be elevated to the level of
‘classics’ within a relatively short time after publication, while others are rejects, some to reach the exalted
position of a classic later, when the dominant poetics has changed.”

According to Lefevere ideology and poetics prevail upon and dictate the translations and the
solution to specific problems.

TRANSLATION AND MANIPULATION

Some manipulations in the TT may be indicative of the translator’s conscious ideology or produced
by “ideological” elements of the translation environment such as pressure from a commissioner,
editor or institution. Manipulation may be due to censorship in authoritarian regimes.
- The 1947 Dutch edition of Anne Frank’s diary, «rewritten» by Anne’s father Otto, alters the
image of the girl => her sexuality. Unflattering descriptions of friends and family disappear
- The 1950 German translation was done by a friend of Otto’s and contains errors of
comprehension and/or alterations with regard to the image of Germans => derogatory
remarks are toned down
- Ideological pressures.

CULTURAL TRANSLATION
New use of the word translation ⇒ new kind of translation? No equivalence involved, no invariance,
no goal-oriented communicative activity, not exts or translators. Colonial and post-colonial processes
have displaced and mixed people and languages and these phenomena have something to do with
translation.
The location of Culture ⇒ Hobi Bhabha, Indian born philosopher. The satanic verses, Salman
Rushdie.
Cultural movements = migrants from the Indian sub-continent to the West. Dillemas faced by
migrant families = do they remain foreign or do they integrate into the host culture?
(see: source oriented translation and target oriented translation).
 What Bhabha takes from translation theory is the notion of untranslatability (see The Translator’s
Task by Walter Benjamin) ⇒ for Bhabha, untranslatability is a point of resistance to integration and
a will to survive found in migrants. Translation as a METAPHOR. Wherever borders are crossed,
cultural translation may result.

According to Anthony Pym, this view of translation is from the cultural position of the translator,
NOT translation. The translator produces languages from a hybrid space (Bhaba: «between space»
or «third space).
The link with migration highlights the fact that translation ensues from material movements.
Cultural translation does not offer a hermeneutics of texts, but a way of talking about social conctexts,
the world.

Feminism attempts to reclaim language to deconstruct patriarchy. Feminist translation studies (FTS)
aim to include feminist ideology in translation. Feminist translators belived that language and
translation are not neutral, “innocent” acts (Simon), and are significant tools for legitimizing or
subverting the status quo.
Gender in translation → Canadian translation scholar Simon approaches translation from a
gender-studies angle, since the interest of cultural studies in translation brought about a “process of
disciplinary hybridization”. Translation studies are dominated by sexist language: dominance,
fidelity, faithfulness, betrayal, bes belles infedeles, Stenier’s translation as “penetration”.
Parallel between translation (derivative / inferior to ST) and women (repressed). For feminist
translation, fidelity is to be directed toward neither the author or the reader, but toward the writing
project – a project in which both writer and translator participate.
In 1980s Canada feminist translators set out to emphasize their identity and ideological position
within the cultural dialogue between Quebec and Anglophone Canada → Canadian school of feminist
translation.
Barbara Godard, Canadian translator and academi: “The feminist translator, affirming her critical
difference, her delight in interminable rereading and rewriting, flaunts the signs of her manipulation
of the text”.

An alternative woman’s language was created that dismantles patriarch language and made women
linguistically visible. Luise Von Flotow, German Canadian translator and academic, observed
unconventional spelling, subverted semantic and grammatical systems, created puns and neologism.
 STRATEGIES IN FT
Luise von Flotow’s strategies were aimed at making visible the gendered and cultural dimensions
of a text, and at challenging patriarchal and dominant linguistic norms. Her strategies were aimed
at:

- Preserving or amplifying the female voice

- Rendering linguistic and cultural specificity – especially in contexts like Quebec, where
the francophone minority’s identity could be flattened in English translations
- Making translation a political act: translation is never neutral => a space for intervention
in power structures, both linguistic and social.

1) Supplementing = it compensates for differences in language or constitutes voluntarist action

on the text.
2) Prefacing and footnoting
3) Hijacking = feminizing the SL. Avoiding male generic terms in English although they appear
in French («la victoire de l'homme» becomes «our victory»). Putting the female element
first in expression like “women and men”.

Montreal-born writer and translator Susanne de Lotbinière-Harwood has translated several

Quebec and English-Canadian feminist writers. She contravenes conventional translation practice of
being see-through by making the feminine seen in her translation.
Postcolonialism is generally used to cover studies of the history of the former colonies, of powerful
European empires, of the resistance to the colonialist powers and of the effect of the imbalance of
power relations between colonized and colonizer.
GAYATRI CHAKRAVORTY SPIVAK = Indian born philosopher, focused on the ideological
consequences of the translation of “third world” literature into English and the distortion this entails.
Spivak speaks out against wester feminists, who expect non-European feminist writing to be
translated into English, the language of power. These translation are often written in translatese,
which eliminates the identity of less powerful individuals and cultures ⇒ standardized language.
In Postcolonial translation, Susan Bassnett and Haris Trivedi talk about a “shameful history of
translation” = translation played an active role in the colonization process, speareding ideological
images of colonized peoples.
Bassnett and Trived also point to this unequal struggle of local languages against the one master-
language of our postcolonial world, English. Translation is the battlefield of the postcolonial context.
 In her book Siting History, Post-structuralism and the Colonial Context, Indian schola Tejaswini
Niranjana describes literary translation as one of the discourses (the other being: education / theology
/ historiography / philosophy) which “inform the hegemonic apparatus that belong to the ideological
structure of colonial rule”.
“Translation as a practice shape and takes shapes within the asymmetrical relations of power that
operate under colonialism”. For Niranjana, it is a case of “dismantling the hegemonic west from
within, deconstructing and identifying the means by which the west represses the non-west and
marginalizes its own otherness”. Interventionist approach.

The translation of the treaty of Waitangi: a case of disempowerment by Sabine Fenton and Paul
Moon. Signed in 1840 between a representative of the British crown and over five hundred Maori
chiefs, the treaty of Waitangi became a major document in the foundation of the modern state of new
Zealand.
The translation was produced by Anglican missionary Henry Williams. Mistranslation of terms such
as ‘possession’ and ‘sovereignty’.

The role of the translator: visibility, ethics and sociology

The translator’s invisibility draws on Lawrence Venuti’s own experience as a translator of

experimental Italian poetry and fiction. The terms invisibility is used to “describe the translator’s
situation and activity n contemporary briish and American cultures”.
Invisibility produced by:

1) By the way translators themsevelves tend to translate fluently into English, to produce an
idiomatic nd readable TT → illusion of transparency.
2) By the way the translated texts are typically read in the target culture.

“A translated text, whether prose or poetry, fiction or nonfiction, is judged acceptable by most
publishers, reviewers, and readers when it reads fluently, when the absence of any linguistic or
stylistic peculiarities makes it seem transparent, giving the appearance that it reflects the foreign
writer’s personality or intention or the essential meaning of the foreign text—the appearance, in other
words, that the translation is not in fact a translation, but the ‘original’” (Venuti 2018: 1).

Reasons behind invisibility:

1) Prevailing concept of authorship.
2) Trnalsations seens as derivative and of secondary quality and importance.

So the tendency since Driden has been to conceal the act of translation.
The notion of invisibility goes hand in hand with 2 types of translation = domestication and
foreignization, which concern: (Schleiermacher.)

1) The choice of the texts to translate.

2) The translation method.

Domestication → Venuti sees it as dominating British and American translation culture. He

criticizes domestication since it involves and ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to receiving
cultural values. This entails translating in a transparent, fluent invisible style in order to minimize the
foreignness of the TT.
Foreignization → entails choosing a foreing text and developing a translation method along lines
which are excluded by dominant cultural values in the target language. It is the preferred choice of
Schleiermacher = the translator leaves the writer in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader
toward the writer.
According to Venuti, foreignizing practices are a highly desirable stretegica cultural intervention ⇒
non fluen, estranging or heterogenous translation style designes to make visible the presence of the
translator and to highlight the foreign identity of the ST.
Domestication and foreignization are not binary opposites, but a part of a continuum and relate to
ethical choices made by the translator:
“The terms ‘domestication’ and ‘foreignization’ indicate fundamentally ethical attitudes towards a
foreign text and culture, ethical effects produced by the choice of a text for translation and by the
strategy devised to translate it, whereas the terms like ‘fluency’ and ‘resistancy’ indicate
fundamentally discursive features of translation strategies in relation to the reader’s cognitive
processing” (Venuti 2018: 19).
No translation can be entirely foreignizing, “all translation is an interpretation that fundamentally
domesticates the source text”.

INVESTIGATIN INVISIBILITY

- Comparing ST and TT linguistically for signs of foreignizing and domesticating practices.

 - Interviewing the translators: strategies, correspondence with the authors, different drafts of
a translation.
- Interviewing the publishers, editors and agents → what are their aims? How do they choose
which books to translate? What instruction do they give translators?
- How many books are translated, into which language?
- Translation contracts.
- Packaging of the text → is the translator’s name on the title page? Is there a translator’s
preface?
- Is the translator visible in book review? Is the translations judged? By what criteria?

Venuti ws influence by French theorist Antoine Berman and by his L’épreuve de l’étranger. Why
“epreuve”?

1) For the target culture in experiencing the strageness of the foreign text and word.
2) For the foreign text in being uprooted from its original context.

Berman deplores the tendency to negate the foreign in translation by the strategy of naturalization
⇒ Venuti’s domestication.
“The properly ethical aim of the translating act” is receiving the foreign as foreign → Venuti’s
foreignization.
System of textual deformation in the TT that prevents the foreign from emerging.
His examination of the forms of textual deformation is called negative analytic = primarily
concerned with ethnocentric, annexationist translations and hypertextual translations where the play
of deforming forces is freely exercised.

BERMAN’S 12 DEFORMING TENDENCIES

1) Rationalization entails the modification of syntactic structures including punctuation and

sentence structure and order.
2) Clarification includes explicitation of the implicit (what if the text was intentionally unclear?)
3) Expansion entails addition aimed at clarifying → over translation → longer TTs.
4) Ennoblement refers to some translators’ tendency to improve on the original, rewriting it in a
more elegant style.
5) Qualitative impoverishment = replacement of words and rexpressins with lack-uster TT
equivalents.
6) Quantitative impoverishment = loss of lexical variation in translation.
7) Destruction of rhythms, in novels and poetry.
8) Deconstruction of underlying networks of signification = Text => textus => unit of sense,
network of meaning; subtext; hidden meanings. The network of signifiers and implicit meanings
is destroyed when certain signifiers or crucial words from the source text are not translated.
9) Deconstruction of linguistic patternings = the ST may be systematic in its sentence
constructions and patternings.
10) Deconstruction of vernacular networks or their exoticization = relates to local language
pattern or culture-specific items.
a) If they are erased => loss
b) If the translator looks for a TL vernacular or slang equivalent => ridiculous exoticization of
the foreign.
11) Deconstruction of expressions and idioms = replacement of an idiom or proverb by its Tl
equivalent is an ethnocentrism.
a) Example: Joseph Conrad’s novel The Arrow of Gold => set in 1870s Marseille, it opens with
a Carnival scene: «There was a touch of bedlam in all this». The word «bedlam» refers to the
hospital of St Mary of Bethlehem which was devoted to treating the mentally ill in the 1400s.
Over time, the pronunciation of Bethlehem morphed into bedlam and the term is now a
byword for pandemonium. The word «bedlam» should not be translated with a French
equivalent => Charenton, a similar institution.
12) Effacement of the superimposition of languages = it concerns the way a translation tends to
erase traces of different forms of language that co-exist in the ST (Example: mix of American
English and Latin American Spanish in the work of Latino writers).

POSITIVE ANALYTIC → Berman advocates for a literal translation = a translation that is attached
to the letter of works. Labor on the ltter in translation, on the one hand, restores the particular
signifying process of works (which is more than their meaning) and, on the other and, transforms the
trnalsating language.
More recent work in translation studies has given more value to comments from participants in the
trnalsation process. Venuti’s “call to action” for transaltors to adopt visible and foreignizing pracices
is perhaps a reaction to those contemporary translators who seem to debate their work along lines
appropriate to age-old and vague terms: «flow», «accuracy», «ear», «the voice of the ST».
 POSITION AND POSITIONALITY OF THE TRANSLATOR
The stance (position) and positionality of the translator have become much more central in
translation studies. Maria Tymoczko (ideology and the position of the translator: in what sense is a
translator in-between?) rejects the romantic and elitist western notion of solitary translators and states
that the translator should act as ethical agents of social change and pursue engagement and collective
action.
Carol Meir calls this positioning intervenience → translator activism

Daniel Simeoni = voluntary servitude. 1998 paper The pivotal status of the translator’s habitus ⇒
stresses the importance of studying the translatorial habitus = how the translator’s own behaviour and
agency contribute to the establishments of norms. Pessimistic view = no bargaining power ⇒ most
translators’ habitus is one of voluntary servitude.
Pierre Bourdieu ⇒ the term habitus was introduced by him, and has to do with the broad social,
identity and cognitive make-up or disposition of the individual.

VENUTI: THE WEAKNESS OF THE TRANSLATOR

Literary translators work from contract to contract, for a usually modest fee, with the publishers
initiating most translations and seeking to minimize translation costs. No copyright/royalties →
weakness,
Peter Fawcett’s Translation and power play = this amounts to a power play, with the final product
often determined by editors and publishers → domesticating translation, a translation should read
well in the TL.

Most authors aim at being translated into English. The percentage of translated books in UK and
USA is very low. On the other hand, in many other countries the percentage of translated books is
much higher and the majority of translation are from English → imbalance → cultural hegemony of
Anglo-American publishing.