Chapter Two

Translation Theories: A Historical Perspective

2.0. For almost two thousand years, translation theory has

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

What translators have had to say about their

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

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

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

20
 [Link] First Period
This period starts with the Romans. Eric Jacobsen (in
Bassnett, 1988:48 ) goes so far as to hyperbolically
propound that translation is a Roman invention though
translation is as old as language itself .Translated documents
were discovered in the third and the second millennium B.C., in
ancient Egypt and in Iraq. It extends from the statements of
Cicero and Horace on translation up to publication of Alexander
Fraser Tytler’s Essay on the Principles of Translation in 1791. It
is perhaps the longest period as it covers a span of some 1700
years. The main characteristic of this period is that of
‘immediate empirical focus’, i.e., the statements and theories
from the practical work of translating. Both Horace and Cicero,
in their remarks on translation, make an important distinction
between word for word translation and sense for sense
translation. The underlying principle of enriching the native
language and literature through translation leads to stress the
aesthetic criteria of the TL product rather than the more rigid
notions of ‘fidelity’. Horace in his Art of Poetry, warns against
overcautious imitation of the source model and slavish
litertalism :

“A theme that is familiar can be made your

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

21
 This period concludes by Tytler’s definition of good
translation as,
“That in which the merit of the original
work is so completely transfused into
another language, as to be as distinctly
apprehended, and as strongly felt, by a
native of the country to which that
language belongs, as it is by those who
speak the language of the original work”.
(in Bell,1991: 11)

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

[Link] translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas

of the original work.
2. The style and manner of writing should be of the same
character with that of original.
3. The translation should have all the ease of original
composition. (Ibid)

1.2. 2.2. The Second Period:

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

22
 French humanist Etienne Dolet who had propounded in
1540 a short outline of translation principles, entitled La
maniere de bien traduire d une langue en aultre ( How to
Translate Well from Oone Language into Another) and
established five principles for the translator (in Bassnett : 58) .
1. The translator must fully understand the sense and
meaning of the original author, although he is at liberty to
clarify obscurities
2. The translator should have a perfect knowledge of
both SL and TL.
3. The translator should avoid word-for-word renderings.
4. The translator should use forms of speech in common
use.
5. The translator should choose and order words
appropriately to produce the correct tone.

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

importance of understanding the text as a primary requisite.
His views were reiterated by George Chapman (559-1634), the
great translator of Homer. In his dedication to the Seven Books
(1598) Chapman asserts that “The work of a skilful and worthy
translator is to observe the sentences, figures and forms of
speech proposed in his
author.” He repeats his theory more fully in the Epistle to
the Reader of his translation of The Iliad, (in ibid:59) stating
that a translator must:
1. avoid word for word renderings;
2. attempt to reach the ‘spirit’ of the original;
[Link] overloose translations, by basing the translation on
a sound scholarly investigation of other versions and
glosses.

23
 John Dryden (1631-1700), in his Preface to Ovid s Epistle
(1680), tackled the problems of translation by formulating
three basic types (in Bassnett: 64):
[Link], or turning an author word by word, and line
by line, from one language into another;
2. paraphrase, or translation with latitude, the Ciceronian
‘sense-for-sense’ view of translation;
[Link], where the translator can abandon the text of
the original as he sees fit. Dryden claims to have steered
“betwixt the two extremes of paraphrase and literal
translation” which he likens to a person dancing on ropes
with fettered legs.(Ibid).

2.3. The Third Period:

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

2.4. The Fourth Period:

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

24
 This contemporary period has witnessed the emergence of
many new theories such as the ‘ polysystem theory, which
has first arisen from the work of a group Russian literary
theorists. The concept of the ‘polysystem’ has received
considerable attention in the work of certain groups of
translation scholars since the mid-1970s. The theory offers a
general model for understanding, analyzing and describing
the functions and evolution of literary systems, its specific
application to the study of translated literature. These
systems, whether in the original or translated texts subsume
several levels: linguistic, cultural, and social, all of which
overlap and interact with each other.
‘Skopos theory’ is another theory which was developed in
Germany in the late 1970s (Vermeer, 1978). It reflects a shift
from predominantly linguistic and rather formal theories to a
more functionally and socio-culturally oriented concept of
translation. The word ‘skopos’ is derived form Greek as a
technical term for the purpose of translation, i.e., skopos
which must be defined before translation begins. The theory
endeavours to meet the growing need in the latter half of the
twentieth century for the translation of non-literary texts:
scientific, academic papers, instructions for use, tourist
guides, contracts, etc. According to this theory, the
contextual factors surrounding the translation should not be
ignored. These factors include the culture of the intended
readers of the target text and the client who commissioned it,
and more significantly the function which the text aspires to
perform in that culture for those readers. Likewise,
pragmatics stresses the principle of intentionality in
translation, i.e. significance of the text or the author’s
intention, and that the ‘comprehension of the intent’,
according to Nida, is a vital requisite of translation .

25
2.5. Translation Computerization Era
The invention of computer has led to aspire after an automatic
machine translation (MT) wherein the computer is provided with
the ST to be reproduced automatically or –
with the assistance of man as a semantically equivalent and well-
formed text in the TL.
Translation-oriented computerized technology in general and
machine translation (MT) in particular can be described
as a complex and diverse field in which a wide range of
‘actors’, such as translation theorists, linguists, engineers among
other researchers play a vital role in addition to evaluators of
end-user groups including professional translators, trainers and
translation companies.
MT is simply a translation performed either purely
automatically by a computer or with human assistance which
involves the preparation of the ST, i.e., pre-editing and/or
product editing, i.e., post-editing. Historically, MT has
undergone five periods of development (As-Safi, 2004:207-227),
starting with the pioneering era followed by the second period
which witnessed at mid-fifties the appearance of the first
generation whose systems rely upon ‘direct translation’ wherein
the ST words are replaced with TT words after conducting the
required morpho-syntatic changes based on the contrastive
differences between the SL and TL. The third period is initially
characterized by stagnation of research but later by the
development of the indirect approach of MT. The fourth period
witnessed the appearance of the second generation, which is the
product of ‘rule-based approaches’ based on the notion of
translation as a process involving the analysis and representation
of the ST meaning by TL equivalents. Furthermore, in this
period there emerged other rule-based approaches which,
according to Palumbo (00973-74) rely on rules that convert the
abstract SL representation into an abstract TL

26
 representation. These systems require various transfer models
for different language pairs.
The fifth period is marked with the third generation as the
product of ‘corpus-based approaches’ which seem to have
gained popularity in the early 1990s. It employs a reference
corpus of TTs and STs, particularly statistical-based
approaches which use algorithms to match the new TL
segments with the built-in SL segments and their equivalents
contained in the corpus, then compute the possibility that
corpus-based TL equivalents are valid TL segments for the new
text to be translated. (Quah, 2006: 196)
-
2.6. Arabs’ Theorization
The Arabs, according to Baker (2005: 318), are credited with
initiating the first organized, large-scale translation activity in
history. This activity started during the reign of the Umayads
(661-750) and reached its zenith under the Abbasids (750-
1258), particularly during the reign of Al-M’mun (813-33) ,
known as the Golden Era of translation. Al-Ma’mun had
founded in 830 the most important institute of higher learning
in Islam, which also became the most celebrated center of
translation in Arab history. Bait Al-Hikma (House of Wisdom),
in Baghdad, functioned as an academy, library and translation
bureau which had a personnel of 65 translators.

Two methods of translation had been adopted: the first,

associated with Yuhana Ibn Al-Batriq and Ibn Na’ima Al-Himsi,
was highly literal and consisted of translating each Greek word
with an equivalent Arabic word, but when there is no equivalent,
the Greek word is adopted. This method, as in all literal
translations, was not successful so that many of their translations
were later revised by Hunayn Ibn Ishaq with whom the second
method was associated, which exercised translating sense-for-
sense.

27
 Thus it creates fluent translated texts which convey the
meaning of the original without distorting the TL. Ibn Ishaq and
his followers had apparently given priority to the requirements
of the target language and readers, stressing the significance of
readability and accessibility, and employing, what he called
‘pleasant and limpid style which can be understood by the
non-expert.’(Ibid: 321). A proponent theorist and one of the
best-known writers in his time , albeit never been a practitioner,
is Al-Jahiz (d.869) who sharply remarks in his statements
about translators and translation, insisting that the translator can
never do the original writer justice or express him with
fidelity.

[Link] Status of Translation Theory

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

28
 Chapter Three

Translation Theories: A General Survey

3.0. According to Newmark (1981: 19), translation theory

is concerned mainly with determining appropriate
translation methods for the widest possible range of texts
or text-categories. It also provides a frame work of
principles, restricted rules and hints for translating texts
and criticizing translations, a background for problem
solving. Any theory should also be concerned with
translation strategies adopted to address difficulties and
problems in certain complicated texts. Likewise, Graham
(in Ross,1981: 23-24 and 26) asserts that any substantial
theory of translation assumes some formal inquiry
concerning the general principles of accomplishment, the
very principles which define an object and specify a
method of study. A rigorous theory of translation would
also include something like a practical evaluation
procedure with specific criteria. A good survey of the
theories of translation is perhaps best furnished by E. Nida
(1976:66-79) who avers that due to the fact that translation
is an activity involving language there is a sense in which
any and all theories of translation are linguistic (ibid:66).
He classifies these theories into three: philological theories,
linguistic theories and socio-linguistic theories, the sequel
of three diverse perspectives and different approaches to

29
 principles and procedures of translation. If the emphasis is
on the literary texts, the underlying theories of translation
are best deemed philological; if it is on structural
differences between SL and TL, the theories may be
considered linguistic; and finally if it is on a part of
communication process, the theories are best described as
sociolinguistic. However, a more comprehensive survey
subsumes far more than Nida’s three sets of theories as
elaborated below.
-

3.1. Philological Theories

Philological theories rely upon ‘philology’ as the study of
the development of language, and the classical literary
studies. They are mainly concerned with the comparison of
structures in the native and foreign languages, especially
the functional correspondence and the literary genres in
addition to stylistics and rhetoric .Nida explicitly states:

The philological theories of translation

are, of course based on a philological
approach to literary analysis. They simply
go one step further; in place of treating the
form in which the text was first composed,
they deal with corresponding structures in
the source and receptor languages and
attempt to evaluate their equivalences ……
Philological theories of translation are
normally concerned with all kinds of
stylistic features and rhetorical devices.
(Nida, 1976: 67-68)

3.2. Philosophical Theories

The most prominent proponent of these theories is
George Steiner, who claims that his book After Babel (1975)

30
 is the ‘first systematic investigation of the theory and
practice of translation since the eighteen century.’ He
primarily emphasizes the psychological and intellectual
functioning of the mind of translator. He elucidates that
meaning and understanding underlie the translation process,
averring that a theory of translation is essentially a theory of
semantic transfer from SL into TL. He defines his
‘hermeneutic approach’ as “ the investigation of what it
means to ‘ understand a piece of oral speech or written text,
and the attempt to diagnose the process in terms of a general
model of meaning” (Steiner,1975:249.
He introduces his model in what he calls ‘Hermeneutic
Motion’ to describe the process of literary translation. He
looks upon the act of translation in the context of human
communication across barriers of language, culture, time
and personality, thus subdividing this motion into four
stages (or moves). The first move is termed trust or faith,
which consists of the translator’s assumption that the source
text contains ‘a sense to be extracted and retrieved into and
via his own language, although this is generally an
unconscious action. The second move is referred to as the
aggression, penetration or decipherment, in which the
translator “invades, extracts and brings home” the meaning
of the original. The third move is termed ‘incorporation,
embodiment or appropriative use . Translation can
introduce new elements into the target linguistic and cultural
system. The fourth and final stage or move is labeled
compensation, restitution or fidelity The translator must
work to restore in his language what he has failed to recover
from the original text.

3.3. Linguistic Theories

Linguistic theories of translation, according to Nida (1976:
69) , are based on a comparison of the Linguistic

31
structures of the STs and TTs, rather than a comparison of
literary genres and stylistic features of the philological
theories. Their development is due to two factors: first, the
application of the rapidly expanding linguistics, the
scientific study of language, to several fields such as
cognitive anthropology, semiotics, pragmatics, and
teaching translation/interpreting skills; and second, the
emergence of Machine Translation (MT) which has
provided a significant motivation for basing translation
procedures on linguistic analysis as well as for a rigorous
description of SL and TL (Nida, 1976: 70).
These theories are perhaps best represented by
proponent figures, such as Eugene Nida, Roger Bell and
J.C. Catford who opens his well-known book ‘A Linguistic
Theory of Translation with the words: “Clearly, then, any
theory of translation must draw upon a theory of language
– a general linguistic theory” (165:1) This book has been
translated into Arabic by As-Safi (1983). Accordingly,
‘Linguistic Translation’ ( or Linguistic Approach ) is a
product of these theories which view translation as simply
a question of replacing the linguistic units of the ST
(source text) with “equivalent” TL units without reference
to factors such as context or connotation. Catford
(1965:20) defines translation (in Chapter One above) as a
mere replacement of textual material in SL by equivalent
textual material in the TL . Explicitly, ‘equivalence’ which
is elaborated in Chapter Five below is a milestone in the
linguistic theories .

According to Nida and Taber (1969:134) it is only a

linguistic translation that can be considered ‘faithful’,
because it “is one which only contains elements which can
be directly derived from the ST wording, avoiding any kind
of explanatory interpolation or cultural adjustment which

32
can be justified on this basis.” Nida (1976:75) suggests a
three-stage model of the translation process. In this model,
ST surface elements (grammar, meaning, connotations)
are analyzed as linguistic kernel structures that can be
transferred to the TL and restructured to form TL surface
elements. His linguistic approach basically bears similarity
with Chomsky’s theory of syntax and transformational
generative grammar.

Pertinent to linguistic theories is Newmark’s binary

classification of translation into semantic and
communicative, which somehow resembles Nida’s formal
and dynamic equivalence. “Communicative translation,”
Newmark (1981:39) states, “attempts to produce on its
readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the
original. 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. These two approaches can best be illustrated in
the following figure (Newmark,1981: 39):

ST BIAS TT BIAS

LITERAL FREE

FAITHFUL IDIOMATIC

SEMANTIC / COMMUNICATIVE

Figure 1 : Newmark’s Two Approaches to Translation

33
 The contribution of linguistics to translation is twofold:
to apply the findings of linguistics to the practice of
translation, and to have a linguistic theory of translation, as
opposed to other theories such as the literary theory of
translation. There are, however, differences among
linguistic theories, the principal of which, Nida (Ibid)
maintains, lies in the extent to which the focus is on surface
structures or corresponding deep structures. Theories based
on surface-structures comparisons involve the use of
elaborate sets of rules for matching corresponding
structures, whereas those based on deep-structures involve
transformational analyses employed in teaching the
methods of translation.

3.4. Functional Theories

The 1970s and 1980s witnessed a shift from the static
linguistic typologies of translation and the emergence , in
Germany, of a functionalist and communicative approach
to the analysis of translation. These theories subsume the
early work on text type and language function, the theory
of translational action, skopos theory (Baker, 2005: 235-
238; and Shuttleworth and Cowie, 2oo7:156-157) and text-
analysis model.

34.1. Text- type Theory

Built on the concept of equivalence, which is the milestone
in linguistic theories, the text, rather than the word or
sentence, is deemed the appropriate level at which
communication is achieved and at which equivalence must
be sought (Reiss , 1977: 113-14). Reiss links the functional
characteristics of text types to translation methods. The
main characteristics of each text type can be summarized as
follows (pp.108-9):

34
 3..4.1.1. Informative: It is concerned with ‘plain
communication of facts’: information, knowledge, opinions,
etc. The language dimension used to transmit the information
is logical or referential; the content or ‘topic’ is the main
focus of the communication.
[Link]. Expressive: It denotes the ‘creative composition’
wherein the author uses the aesthetic dimension of the
language.
[Link]. Operative: The purpose is to induce
behavioural responses, i.e., to appeal to or persuade the
reader or ‘receiver’ of the text to act in a certain way.
[Link]. Audiomedial: It refers to films and visual or spoken
advertisements which supplement the other three functions
with visual images, music, etc.
Reiss proposes (ibid, 20) ‘specific translation methods
according to text type’. These methods can be described as
follows:
1. The TT of an informative text should transmit the full
referential or conceptual content of the ST. The
translation should be ‘plain prose’ without redundancy, but
with the use of explication when required.
2. The TT of an expressive text should transmit the
aesthetic and artistic form of the ST. The translation should
use the ‘identifying’ method, with the translator adopting
the stand point of ST author.
3. The TT of an operative text should produce the desired
response in the TT receiver. The translation should create
an equivalent effect among TT readers.
4. Audiomedial texts require the ‘supplementary’ method,
written words with visual images and music. The text type
approach moves translation theory beyond a consideration
of lower linguistic levels, the mere words beyond even the
effect they create, towards a consideration of the
communicative purpose of translation (Munday, 2001:76) .

35
 3.4.2. Translational Action Theory
This theory views translation as purpose-driven,
product-oriented or outcome-oriented human interaction
with special emphasis on the process of translation as
message-transmission or a ‘translational action from a
source text, and as a communicative process involving a
series of roles and players the most important of whom are
the ST producer or the original author, the TT producer or
the translator and the TT receiver, the final recipient of the
TT. The theory stresses the production of the TT as
functionally communicative for the reader, i.e., the form
and the genre of the TT, for instance, must be guided by
what is functionally suitable in the TT culture, which is
determined by the translator who is the expert in the
translational action and whose role is to make sure that the
intercultural transfer takes place satisfactorily.
Nord (2007:18) elucidates that translating (i.e.,
translation process) is essentially a purposeful activity or
behaviour as displayed in the following figure
(Nord’s,2007: 18 adapted) in which translation is viewed as
a form of mediated intercultural communication:

36
 behaviour

non-intentional intentional (=action)

bi-directional (=interaction) unidirectional

person-person person-object

communicative non-communicative

intracultural intercultural

with a mediator without a mediator

translational action

with ST without ST

translating

oral (=interpreting) written

Figure 2 . Translation as a form of Mediated Communication

37
3.4.3. Skopos Theory: As already mentioned in the fourth period
of the historical survey in Chapter Two, skopos theory stresses the
interactional, pragmatic aspects of translation, arguing that the
shape of the TT should be determined by the function or ‘skopos’
( the Greek word for ‘aim’ or ‘purpose’) that it is intended to
fulfill in the target context’ , and it may vary according to the
recipient. The corollary is that the translator should use the
translation strategies which are most appropriate to achieve the
purpose for which TT is intended, irrespective of whether they are
deemed to be the ‘standard’ way to produce in a particular
translation context; in short, when producing a TT, ‘the end
justifies the means.’ It is worth noting that an awareness of the
requirements of the skopos “expands the possibilities of
translation, increases the range of possible translation strategies,
and releases the translator from the corset of an enforced – and
often meaningless – literalness (Vermeer,1989:42), It is the
target readers who will prompt the translator to translate, to
paraphrase or even re-edit the TT as the most appropriate
strategy to be adopted in a given situation.

The skopos theory is criticized by the linguistically oriented

approaches on the ground of the oversimplification that is
inherent in functionalism, the focus on the message at the
expense of richness of meaning and to the detriment of the
authority of SL text (Newmark, 1991; in Baker, 2005:237).
Another criticism of this theory is that even though a translation
may indeed fulfill its intended skopos perfectly well, it may
nevertheless be assessed as inadequate on other counts,
particularly as far as lexical, syntactic, or stylistic decisions on
the microlevel are concerned. (Baker, 237)

38
 3.5 . Sociolinguistic Theories
These theories endeavour to link translation to communicative
theory and information theory, with special emphasis on the
receptor’s role in the translation process. They do not completely
overlook language structures, instead they deal with it at a higher
level in accordance to their functions in the communicative
process. These structures may involve rhetorical devices or
figures of speech such as simile, metaphor, irony, hyperbole, etc.,
in both literary and non-literary texts. These theories require the
translator exhibit language competence as well as language
performance.

3.5.1. Interpretative Theory (or Theory of Sense)

This theory, originally designed to reflect the processes
which are involved in conference interpreting, is associated with
a group of scholars known as the Paris School . It is a reaction
against some of the restricted views of linguistics of the time. The
proponents of this theory argue that interpreters do not work
merely with linguistic meaning, but also need to take into account
such factors as the cognitive context of what has already been
said, the setting in which the interpreting is taking place and the
interpreter’s own world knowledge (Lavault, 1996:97; in
Shuttleworth and Cowie:2007: 85). The corollary is that the focus
should be on the intended meaning or the sense rather than the
words of the ST.

3. 6. Systems Theories
3.6.1. Polysystem Theory
The polysystem theory, Baker (2005:176) maintains,
proffers a general model for understanding, analysis and
describing the functioning and evolution of literary systems,
but focuses particularly on specific application to the study
of translated literature, which, according to Even-Zohar

39
(2000:118, in Munday,2001:109) is a system in the way that:

1. the TL selects works for translation;

2. translation norms, behaviour and policies are influenced
by other co-systems.
Polysystem theory also offers three insights into translation
(Baker, 2005: 178):
1. It is more profitable to view translation as one specific
instance of the more general phenomena of inter-systemic
transfer.
2. Instead of limiting the discussion to the nature of the
equivalence between ST and TT, the translation scholar is
free to focus on the TT as an entity existing in the target
polysystem. The approach to translation would accordingly
be target-oriented, aiming at investigating the nature of the
TT in terms of the features which distinguish it from other
texts originating within a particular system. Furthermore,
TTs cease to be viewed as isolated phenomena, but are
rather thought of as manifestations of general translation
procedures which are currently prevalent in the target
polysystem.
3. The TT is not simply the product of selections from sets of
ready-made linguistic options, instead shaped by systemic
constraints of a variety of types of language structure in
addition to genre and literary taste.

3.6.2. Manipulation Theory

This theory is adopted by a group of scholars associated
with a particular approach to the translation of literature, and
to what is known as ‘Manipulation School’ and also as the
‘Descriptive, Empirical or Systemic School (Hermans, 1995:
-217 in Shuttleworth: 101-102). According to this theory,
translation implies a degree of manipulation of the ST for a
certain purpose, because the translation process brings the

40
TT into line with a particular model which should
secure social acceptance in the target culture. “The approach
to literary translation,” Hermans ( in Shuttleworth, ibid)
asserts, “is descriptive, target-oriented, functional and
systemic” Explicitly, the theory is in sharp contrast with
linguistic theories because from the start it approaches
translation not as science, but as an art which permits
manipulation rather than equivalence, thus it is concerned
with literary not technical translation. Accordingly, translation
process is deemed a rewriting process and the translator is a
re-writer who can alter or manipulate the ST in such a way as
to be acceptable in the target language and culture.

3..6.3. Aesthetic Communication theory

The above theory, we propound, is creativity-oriented
specifically for literary translation, which is essentially an
aesthetic communication between the translator and the
target reader. It is also based on the nature of literature be it
original or translated. It is perhaps conspicuously
indisputable that literary translation, just like literary
original composition, is not only informative, i.e., conveys
lexical meanings, but also expressive or emotive. It
performs a semantic and aesthetic binary function. In point
of fact, information in literary texts is aesthetically framed,
which distinguishes such texts from non-literary ones.
Literary composition, be it original or translated, is a
dynamic texture of vivid stylistic variations, it has no room
for monotony, dullness and stagnation. It caters to arouse
the receptors’ suspense, please them and/or invite their
interest. To this end, it employs a foregrounded structure,
highly elevated style and literary diction. (As-Safi,
2006:10).
Likewise, literary translation which should ideally be a
work of literature is dynamic rather than static: it should be
more like AN original rather than THE original work of art.
Accordingly an aesthetically communicative, dynamic
translation must:

41
 (1) Be dynamic rather than static ( As-Safi, 1994) ;
(2) Be creative and aesthetically informative/
communicative;
(3) Comply with the target linguistic system;
(4). Be appropriate, i.e., fit the context of the message;
(5) Be natural and free from translationese (As-
Safi,1996);
(6) Be acceptable to the target audience or literary
readership and;
(7) Aspire to occupy a position in the target literature as
any other original works of art.

Due to the above requirements, in addition to the

intricate, hybrid and aesthetic nature of literary translation,
one may well concur with Adams (1973: 92-101) in
asserting that literary works are harder to translate than
they were to compose, “for the original composition is the
art of choosing the exactly right word or expression, and
includes the option of changing and modification as
deemed appropriate whereas the art of literary/ belletristic
translation is the art of choosing among a set of possible
compromises.
The following figure illustrates that translation is
essentially a communicatively manipulated act.

42
 SL Author
TL Reader

Semantically
Accurate
SL Encoder Grammatically Text TL
Correct
Stylistically
Semantically Effective
Message
Textually
coherent

SL Creator TL Creator
stylistically Stylistically

SL Message TL Encoder
Text Translator Semantically
SL Decoder
SL Reader TL Encoder Transfer
Decoding/Appreciation Semantic/Stylistic

Diagram 1: Translation as a Communicatively Manipulative Act.

43
 The Above diagram demonstrates the multiple task of the
translator as a decoder, appreciator, critic, encoder and
creator who maintains an equilibrium to transfer the SL
text semantically as well as stylistically. By necessity, he
reads each word and each sentence in the ST as carefully as
a critic before he transfers and finally composes it in the
TL. Such a transference and composition can never be
achieved through literal, i.e., word-for-word translation
which, Nida and Reybum (1981) rightly maintain, will
inevitably tend to distort the meaning of the SL message or
as Andre Lefevere (cited in Bassnett, 1996: 81) puts it,
distorts the sense and the syntax of the original. Such a
translation impedes the translator's work and stifles his
creativity which is a manifestation of his competence and
intelligence. It is, as Dryden (cited in Lefevere, 1992:102)
puts it :

Like dancing on ropes with fettered legs;

a man may shun a fall by using caution,
but gracefulness of motion is not to be
expected: and when we have said the
best of it, it’s but a foolish task.

There is nothing new in repudiating literalism in translation, on

which there is now almost a general consensus. Lefevere quotes
Horace as antedating such an attitude:

Word-for-word translation do not find

mercy in our eyes, not because they are
against the law of translation ( as an act
of communication) but simply because

44
 two languages are never identical in
their vocabulary. Ideas are common to
the understanding of all men but words
and manners of speech are particular to
different nations. (Bracketing is
Lefevere's). (ibid)

3.7. Relevance Theory

Relevance theory is associated with pragmatics, which is
primarily concerned with how language is used in
communication, particularly with the way meaning is
conveyed and manipulated by the participants in a
communicative situation. In other words, pragmatics deals
with ‘speaker’s meaning’ and the way it is interpreted by the
hearer(s), in what is known as ‘implicature’. (Palumbo. 2009:
89) In translation, implicature can be seen as one kind or
level of equivalence between a ST and TT at which can be
established. (The pragmatic equivalence is Baker’s seventh
kind, discussed in Chapter Five below). The theory, according
to Gutt, is developed by Sperder and Wilson who emphasize
the ‘interpretive use ‘ of language’ as distinct from the ‘
descriptive use. The former use is explicated by Gutt
(2000:210) as follows:

The fundamental characteristic of the

interpretive use of language is not just the
fact that two utterances interpretively
resemble one another, but that one of them
is intended to be relevant in virtue of its
resemblance with the other utterance. In
general terms, in ‘reported speech’
interpretively used utterances “achieve
relevance by informing the hearer of the fact

45
 that so-and-so has said something or thinks
something.”
(The quotation is Sperder and Wilson’s

Baker (2005:182) points out that Gutt tries to describe

translation in terms of a general theory of human
communication based on the premise that the ability of
human beings to infer what is meant may be accounted for
in terms of observing the principle of relevance defined as
achieving maximum benefit at minimum processing cost.
In other words, relevance theory endeavours to give an
explicit account of how the information-processing
faculties of the mind enable us to communicate with one
another. Its domain is therefore mental faculties rather than
texts or processes of text production (Gutt: 21). The
theory then represents a shift from description to
explanation, as elucidated below.

Relevance theory is not a descriptive-classificatory

approach. It does not try to give an orderly description of
complex phenomena by grouping them into classes, but tries
instead to understand the complexities of communication in
terms of cause-effect relationship (Gutt, 2000: 21-22).

8. Towards a Comprehensive, Applicable Theory

of Translation
It is perhaps a very arduous task to formulate a
comprehensive, applicable theory amidst multiplicity,
miscellany and disparity of the existing theories.
Nevertheless, We try tentatively to furnish such a theory,
depending particularly on some authentic references. First

46
 comes Webster’s definition of ‘theory’ as a ‘body of
generalizations and principles in association with practice in
a field of activity.’ Manifestly, translation is intrinsically a
practical activity from which generalizations can be inferred,
and is in a dire need for principles to guide the practice.
Generalizations are only inferences drawn from paradigms,
instances of facts provided by contrastive analyses of
various levels in both ST and TT: morphological, syntactic,
textual and stylistic/rhetorical. When generalizations are
universally applicable and predictable they become
principles, norms, rules or laws to govern the translation
activity.

In the same vein, Graham (1981: 24-26) asserts that any

substantial theory of translation assumes some formal inquiry
concerning the general principles which define an object and
specify a method of study, Furthermore, a rigorous theory of
translation would also include a practical evaluation
procedure.
According to Reiss and Vermeer (in Shuttleworth,
2007:185) any theory, including one on translation, should
contain: “(1) the statement of its basis, (2) the description of
its object, and (3) an inventory of rules”. Likewise, Newmark
(1981: 19) contends that translation theory’s main concern is to
determine “appropriate translation methods” and to provide “ a
framework of principles, restricted rules and hints for
translating texts and criticizing translations.” On the same
lines, Longman Dictionary of Teaching & Applied Linguistics
(p.691) defines ‘theory’ as “ a statement of a general principle,
based upon reasoned argument and supported by evidence, that
is intended to explain a particular fact, event, or phenomena.”
Bell (1991: 24-25) also explicitly states “ A theory is an
explanation of a phenomena, the perception of system and
order in something observed. From the observation, data is
collected to explain the theory which, according to Bell (
1991:24), will lead to a model, as illustrated in the following
figure:

47
 PHENOMENA

observed and collected

In the form of

Data

whose cohesive character

is explained by

THEORY

which is transmitted
in the form of a

Model

Figure 4: Bell’s Translation Model as a Product of a Theory

Another example of a model is furnished by Nida (in Bassnett:

23) for the translation process:

Source Language Receptor Language

TEXT TRANSLATION

ANALYSIS RESTRUCTURTNG

TRTANSFER

Figure 5 . Nida’s Model of Translating (= Tr Process)

48
 Ideally, Bell (p. 27) rightly maintains, a theory must
reflect four characteristics:
1. empiricism : it must be testable;
2. determinism : it must be able to predict;
3. parsimony : it must be simple and economic;
4. generality : it must be comprehensive.

“A full, inclusive theory of translation,” Holms (in Ibid)

maintains, “must accommodate many elements which can
serve to explain and predict all phenomena falling within
the domain of translating (i.e., the process) and translation
(i.e., the product), to the exclusion of all phenomena falling
outside it”. (Bracketing is mine). But instead of one theory
which caters for both process and product, Bell (p. 26)
envisages three types of theories of translation:
1.A theory of translation as a process (i.e., a theory of
translating). This would require a study of information
processing and, within that, such topics as (a) perception, (b)
memory and (c) the encoding and decoding of messages, and
would draw heavily on psychology and psycholinguistics.
2. A theory of translation as a product (i.e., a theory of
translated texts) This would require a study of texts not
merely by means of the traditional levels of
linguistic analysis (syntax and semantics) but also making
use of stylistics and recent advances in text-linguistics and
discourse analysis.
3. A theory of translation both process and product (i.e.,
a theory of translating and translation). This would require
the integrated study of both, and such a general theory is,
presumably, the long-term goal for translation studies.
To the third type, i.e., process and product, we add an
essential intermediary element between the process and

49
 the product, i.e., transfer. Accordingly, translation is a tri-
phase activity. In fact, the intricate nature of translation
makes it mandatory to relate the product to the tri-phase
process (As-Safi, 1996), though the constituent phases
are not autonomously separate from each other.

First comes the phase of decoding, whereby the original

text is analysed for a thorough acquaintance both
thematically and stylistically, that is, for full
comprehension and stylistic appreciation. Here the
translator performs the triple task of a reader, a critic and
an interpreter: he has not only to comprehend the semantic
units of the original text but also to be aware of the author's
style and salient syntactic / rhetorical features when dealing
with literary / belletristic text. The initial step in the textual
analysis carried out conventionally and perhaps subcon-
sciously by most translators is to segment the text into a
number of units: words, phrases, clauses and sentences
within each of which the distribution of denotative and
connotative meanings are scanned. A pertinent test of
intelligibility is purported by Nida (1964: 140). In his
"cloze-technique" the reader is provided with a text in
which, for example, every fifth word is deleted, and he is
asked to fill in with whatever words that seem to fit the
context best. The degree of comprehensibility is related to
the degree of predictability. It is assumed that the easier it
is for the reader to guess the next word in a sentence, the
easier to comprehend the word in the given contexts and
the greater the number of correct guesses, the greater the
predictability and consequently the easier the text.

The second phase is that of "transcoding" or transfer.

After acquainting himself with the original text, the
translator usually starts to ascertain and record the

50
equivalence in the target language for each of the elements
he has already identified. In most cases, however,
equivalence is far from being identical, or as Catford
(1965: 27) puts it, "nearly always approximate, since every
language is ultimately sui generis". Items are said to be
equivalent in the two languages when they are
interchangeable in a given situation. Lexically, equivalence
appears to rest on the principle of bilingual synonymy: the
notion that words are mere labels of real things goes back
as far as Plato and carries over to some extent into De
Saussure's concept of the sign (De Beaugrande, 1978: 98).
In such a simplified view, translation consists of exchang-
ing labels, consulting if need be a dictionary or an
informant, and it underlies the awkward, literal or word-
for-word transfer and what Dryden terms 'metaphrase'.
Such a view has been recently questioned, by many
linguists and celebrated translators, for true synonymy - the
property of words to be mutually interchangeable in two
contexts – is quite rare for most 'abstract' items, let alone
the highly emotive or connotative, the language-specific
and culture-specific ones.
In consequence, the translator cannot easily or
immediately furnish solutions to all problems regarding
equivalence albeit resorting to an exhaustive search
through all available reference materials. If an equivalent
expression cannot be located, he must find some parallel
expression that will yield approximately the same kind of
effect produced by the original. Idioms, and figures of
speech, such as allegory, metaphor, parable or simile, are
cases in point. The metaphor baidha' (white) in the Arabic
expression lailatun baidha' cannot be rendered
as such (i.e. white night) but sleepless night; similarly, the
word 'teeth' becomes 'arm' in Arabic in the following
idiomatic utterance: 'He would have given his back teeth
for such a chance:

51
 " " And the English
simile: "as cool as cucumber" might produce a rather
ridiculous effect in Arabic when rendered literally
instead of meaning: calm at time of danger. Yet
even when the task of harmonizing grammatically correct
structures is accomplished, the product of transfer may be
accurate but perhaps wooden: it is something more than a
gloss and something less than a literary work.
The third and final phase is recoding the transferred
message in the target language, complying with its
linguistic as well as literary conventions of the literary texts
so as to be as semantically accurate and aesthetically
effective as the original. A translation of a literary work of
art can justify itself only when it comes to be a literary
work, occupying an appropriate position in the target
literature comparable to the status of the original in the
source literature and at the same time resembling the
original in every respect. And as Adams (1973: 100) puts
it, "a proper literary translation does not simply convey to
us the elements of the original in such fullness as may be,
but conveys them to us in something of the same order and
structure of relatedness as the original". If the product
sounds mediocre, in other words, if it reads as THE
original and not AN original, the translator has not gone far
enough in fulfilling his function, that is, his product is
lacking in aesthetic values, as it has failed to transmit the
literariness and felicity of the original. The ideas may have
been accurately reproduced but aesthetically wanting. On
the other hand, he will have gone too far should his
translation depart too radically from the semantic content
and/or literary values of the original. This very delicate yet
difficult equilibrium intensifies the plight of the literary
translator, for his 'recreation' of the original should not render
translation as a mere imitation or an artistically embellished
'edition'. Besides his literary or rhetorical competence, he has

52
to be very tactful and eclectic in his approach. For instance,
of the three methods of translation which Dryden
distinguishes in his preface to the translation of Ovid's
Epistles (1680), 'metaphrase' or word-for-word might shackle
the translator to the original work whereas 'paraphrase' or
sense-for-sense and 'imitation', whereby he abandons the text
of the original, both bestow upon him a freedom which
would necessarily distance him from the original. Therefore,
one may well concur with Adams (1973: 11), who asserts
that literary works are harder to translate than they were to
compose, "for the original composition is the art of choosing
the exactly right word or expression, and includes the option
of changing and modification as deemed appropriate whereas
the art of translation is the art of choosing among a set of
possible compromises; it simply does not allow that
important option".

53