According to Newmark: Translation theory is concerned mainly with determining appropriate 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 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 furnished by E. Nida 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. He classifies these theories into three:

- Philological theories. - Linguistic theories. - Socio-linguistic theories.

The sequel of the three diverse perspectives and different approaches to principles and procedures of
translation:

- If the emphasis on the literary texts, the underlying theories of translation are deed philological.

- If it is on structural differences between SL and TL, the theories may be considered linguistic.

- 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 the corresponding structures in the source and receptor
languages and attempt to evaluate their equivalence…… philological
theories of translation are normally concerned with all kinds of stylistic
features and rhetorical devices.
3.2. Philosophical Theories

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

He introduces his model in what he calls "Hermeneutic Motion" to describe the process of literary
translation in the context of human communication across barriers of language, culture, time and
personality, thus subdividing this 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 move and final stage 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 theory of translation, according to Nida, are based on a comparison of the linguistic
structures of the STs and TTs, rather than a comparison of literary genres and stylistic features of the
philological theories. 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/interpretating skills.

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.

These theories are perhaps best represented by proponent figures, such as Eugene Nida, Roger Bell
and J.C. Catford who open 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". This book
has been translated inro Arabic by As-Safi. 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 defines translation (In Chapter One above) as a mere replacement of textual material in SL language
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, it is only a linguistic translation that can be considered "faithful", because "it is
one which only contains elements which can be directly derived from the ST wording, avoiding any kind of
explanatory interpolation or cultural adjustment which can be justified on this basis"

Nida suggests a three-stage model of the translation process. In this model, ST surface elements (Grammar,
meaning, connotations) are analyzed as linguistic kernel (=core) structures that can be transferred to the TL
and restructured to for TL surface elements.

His linguistic approach basically bears similarity with Chomsky's theory of syntax and transformational
generative grammar.

A tree-stage-model of translating (translation process) for Nida

ST Receptor language TT

(grammar – meaning – Connotations) (translation)

Analysis Restructure

Transfer

Pertinent to linguistic theory is Newmark's binary classification of translation into semantic and
communicative, which somehow resembles Nida's formal and dynamic equivalence. Newmark states that
"Communicative translation attempts to produces 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: See page 21

The contribution of linguistics to translation is twofold:

1- to apply the findings of linguistics to the practice of translation.

2- to to have a linguistic theory of translation, as opposed to other theories such as the literary theory of
translation.

There are, however, differences among linguistics theories, Nida maintains the principal of which 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 on based on deep-structures involve transformational analyses employed in
teaching the methods of translation.