The notion of translation

The theory of translation is an independent and new field of research in the sphere of language studies. Though the literature on the theory, practice and history of translation is large, most of the basic notions and categories are not clearly defined as yet. This is true of the key notion of the object of translatology, namely, that of translation the understanding of which varies greatly from author to author even today. L.L. Nelyubin has collected 33 definitions of translation in his dictionary which was made on the basis of 224 sources [Нелюбин 2003].

The main point of difference is connected with the dual interpretation of the term translatio n that is offered in the literature on translation studies and lexicographic sources. On the one hand, translation is understood as a process and, on the other hand, as a product of the previous process. The new approach offers one more dimension of translation which is connected with TLT functioning in the target language and culture.

Traditionally, English dictionaries give definitions of translation that treat it both as a process of translating and as a result of the previous process. Cf,

MacMillan. English Dictionary for Advanced Learners [MED 2007]

a. the activity of changing spoken or written words into a different language

b. a word or phrase that means the same thing as a word or phrase in a different language (p. 1593)

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English [LDCE 1995]

1. the act of changing speech or writing into another language

2. smth that has been changed into another language (p.1538);

The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus [ODT 1997]

1. the act or an instance of expressing the sense in another language

2. a written or spoken expression of the meaning of a word, speech, book, etc in another language (p.1660).

The comparison of the dictionary definitions shows that when translation is understood as an act / instance of activity/ process it reveals its dynamic aspect and it is based on a process-oriented approach to translation. When translation is regarded as an end product which is based on a text-oriented approach it is described in terms of a static view on translation and lays stress on estimating the resultant text.

The similar dual interpretation of the notion of translation can be traced in the books on the theory of translation as well. True, various schools of thinking attach different importance to the two aspects of translation. According to St. Campbell, supporters of orthodox translation studies were mostly interested in the product, not in the process of translation. J.C. Catford in his pioneering work “A Linguistic Theory of Translation” (1965) was mostly concerned with the match or mismatch of a SLT and TLT.

In 1969 E.Nida and C.Taber shifted focus on the translator-factor when they advised how to establish project teams consisting of native speakers and foreigners in translating the Bible.

During the last 30 years the translator oriented studies have become increasingly important in the framework of investigating practical problems of human communication and language education under the influence of the general shift in linguistics to the human/personality factor. Scholars argue that it is insufficient to study only target texts, but no less important to take into account the translator as a participant in communication who possesses linguistic and cognitive skills, as well as the knowledge of the language and culture and the extra-linguistic world. This approach underlies empirical research in the process of practising translation, the effect of the psychological attitudes the translator brings to the task and in second-language acquisition.

In view of the two-sided interpretation of the word translation as shown above it is assumed in modern translation studies that both aspects of translation are equally important and they should be studied in two branches of the TT which are described by W. Koller as Translatology of Text and Processual Translatology. This Process- Product (Text) dichotomy has been a pivotal point of all major translation studies.

Translatology of text investigates various aspects of translation equivalence, equivalence and adequacy of translation, the methodology of translation analysis of a text and text typology on translation principles, the correlation of various linguistic, stylistic and textual features of a SLT and their correspondences in a TLT, problems of translating different types of texts belonging to different genres and requirements set for their adequate translation. In traditional theories of translation stress was laid on a SL text which served as the main criterion in estimating the quality of translation. Recently focus was shifted on a translation text (G.Toury, P. Torop, etc) which is treated on its own value since it is created in a new language and should fit in a new culture.

Processual translatology is concerned with mental work of a translator and thus it studies translator’s strategies when perceiving, comprehending, analyzing a SLT, choosing proper ways in the process of creating a TLT, deciding upon this or that form of expressing the author’s ideas and thoughts.

It should be noted that many languages have two sets of terms to refer to translation viewed as a process or activity which may proceed in oral and written form, as well as to people engaged in it: cf.

English: interpret/interpreter (oral) – translate/translator (written)

German: dolmetschen/Dolmetscher (oral) – ubersetzen/Ubersetzer (written)

Russian: толмач (устный) (borrowed from Turkic languages) – переводчик (письменный).

The first member in these sets appeared much earlier and it implied interpreting an oral message of a foreign speaker; the second term appeared later around the XVIth century with the advent of printing which gave an impulse to the practice of written translation.

In modern translation theory the term translation is used in 3 meanings:

1) in a broad and general sense it means any kind of translation (oral and written);

2) in a narrow meaning it refers to the process of written translation;

3) in another narrow sense it means the end result of written translation in the form of written texts.

The term interpretation is used in ME in two senses:

1) an explanation of the meaning or importance of smth;

2) rendering oral messages in a different language.

The term interpreter denotes someone whose job is to translate what a speaker is saying in one language into another language so that someone else can understand it (MED 2007: 793).

Alongside these terms some authors use the word version which initially meant translation from classic languages into modern, now it stands for “a form of something that is different from other forms or from the original” (MED).

Translation viewed as a process raises two sets of problems which are related on the one hand to understanding the nature of translation process and on the other hand the translator’s mental cognitive work connected with this process.

The nature of translation as a process is not understood in the same way by different authors as various definitions have been advanced in the framework of.different theories (models) of language: componential, situational, semantic, transformational, etc [Швейцер 1973]. It can be proved by the following definitions of translation which use different generic notions for this purpose:

J. Catford: “It is a process of substitutin g a text material in one language by equivalent text material in another language” [Catford 2004];

Prof. L.S. Barkhudarov: “ translation is a process of transformin g a text of SL into a text of TL which presupposes semantic invariance of the two texts”[Бархударов 1975];

Prof. A.V. Fedorov: to translate means “to express fully and precisely what has already been expressed in a different language” [Федоров 1968];

Prof. V.N. Komisssarov: a process of producing in the TL a text which has an identical communicative value with the source text [Комиссаров 1990];

Prof. V.G. Gak: it is a “process of describing those referents (i.e. the situation and its elements) which were described in the original text [Гак 2001];

E.A. Chernyahovskaya: it is “ transforming the structure of a speech event which results in changes in the outer means of expression while the content of a text remains unchanged” [Черняховская 1976].

R.O.Jakobson suggested the broadest understanding of translation as different kinds of interpretation: 1) intralingual translation understood as interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language (= paraphrasing), 2) interlingual translation defined as an interpretation of verbal signs of one language by means of verbal signs of a different language (= translation proper), 3) intersemiotic translation viewed as interpretation of verbal signs by means of non-verbal sign systems (Morse code, communication by flags, gestural language, etc) (transmutation) [Якобсон 1985].

The above quoted definitions (see also other definitions of translation in Appendix II) testify to the complexity of the nature of this human activity and it is reasonable to regard at least some of them as complementary as they take into account various aspects of translation process.

When translation is understood as an end result of the previous process, then it is usually described in terms of its quality. The authors of the most well-known theories of translation which are based on comparing a SLT and a TLT try to work out reliable criteria for estimating the adequacy and equivalence of translation, the demands made of technical or literary translation, translation of prose or poetry, etc.

Apart from answering the basic issue of processual translatology connected with the understanding of what is involved in the process of translation there is another set of problems concerning translator’s mental work. When the translator-factor becomes the centre of study then it is necessary to take into account general cultural, cultural psychological and cultural cognitive aspects underlying translator’s mental activity. It stands to reason to assume that these processes are quite different when translation is made into a native tongue or into a foreign (second) language. It should also be noted that traditional (orthodox) translation studies were based on the belief that all translation should be made by translators into their native tongue. Recently there appeared books on translation that shift interest onto translating into a second (foreign) language. St. Campbell, the author of “Translation into the Second Language” (London, 1998) deals with a set of four problems that arise in this context:

1) second-language acquisition, because individual translating into a second language is seen as a means of acquiring that language;

2) the idea of inter-language connected with the methodological view that gives us a chance to study errors second-language translators make;

3) the organization of language above the level of the sentence (i.e. the level of text-linguistics, discourse analysis), as translation checks a translator’s ability to produce stylistically correct authentic texts;

4) the levels of language competence including translation competence.

Both views on translation as a process (dynamic aspect) and as a result of a previous process (static aspect) seem to be equally important and have to be taken into account in order to get a many-sided and comprehensive analysis of translation.

But apart from the combination of the dynamic and statical approaches to translation A.D. Shveitser claims that it is no less important to consider two types of situation in translation: the situation of producing a SL text and a situation of translation which shows the interaction of languages and cultures [Швейцер 1988].

Thus, as is clear from the above, the traditional Process-Product dichotomy is supplemented with one more dimension, namely, functional which takes into account acceptability of a target text functioning in a new socio-cultural community.

In the 80-es and the early 90-s of the XXth century many foreign authors (J. Holmes, McFarlane, S. Bassnett, Lefevere) introduced one more dimension in the understanding of translation. Developing this approach the founder of the so-called total theory of translation, P. Torop and his followers started analyzing the functioning of a target text in a new socio-ethno-cultural environment and elaborated the idea of acceptability of a TLT by people belonging to a different cultural community. This approach is based on the assumption that translation should be viewed as an interlingual and intercultural process of communication (Yu.A. Sorokhin, V.N. Komissarov, L.K. Latyshev). From this point of view it is necessary to look for various additional criteria for evaluating the quality of a target text. The main aspect of a TLT functioning in a new environment is that connected with its acceptability. This quality of a target text is still unsolved and there are no universally accepted features taken into account, moreover many scholars view it as contrasted to the criterion of adequacy of translation. Yu.M. Lotman who studied translation in a semiotic framework of language and culture argues that a target text should resemble both a SL culture and language and a TL culture and language containing the most conspicuous features of both [Лотман 1999]. However, the problem remains what features of the two cultures and languages should be retained, how they should be retained, to what extent some elements should be preserved in translation and others adapted to a receiving culture and other problems.

The main problem which arises in this connection is the problem of proper and acceptable correlation of “us” and “them” in translation which involves both whole texts and textual elements. The translator may choose one of the two translation strategies when solving the problem of acceptability [Чанышева 2007]:

(a) the so-called adaptive approach when the translator applies a number of transformations aimed at facilitating reception and comprehension of verbal and cultural signs in a source language text by TL addressee. For example, Are you O’K? – Ты жив?

(b) the opposite, so-called conservative approach when the translator attempts to preserve the national coloring of a SLT by retaining its peculiar elements. For example, Are you O’K? – Ты в порядке?

Concrete observations of ways of translating Russian cultural words into English show that both translation strategies are employed and there are no hard and fast rules governing their choice. Compare,

conservative translation strategy as in показательный суд – a show trial, рынок вторичного жилья—“secondary” housing market, вертикаль власти – the power vertical;

adaptive translation strategy as in самопал – bootlegging, фабрика звезд – Fame academy, American Idol show,киллер – hitman;

both strategies competing with each other as in невозвращенец – non-returnee, non-returnik / defector; прописка – passport registration, residence registration in a passport /residence permit [Чанышева, Дьяконова 2007].

In conclusion it must be stressed that all the aspects of translation investigated in process-oriented, product-oriented and function-oriented approaches to this phenomenon contribute to our understanding of translation which viewed as an act of interlanguage and intercultural communication aims at overcoming linguistic, ethnocultural and mental differences and barriers between members of any two nations and thus facilitating intercourse and preventing the so-called cultural shock. A translator must be aware of differences not only in languages, but also in life experience, life styles, world views, cultural concepts, cultural codes (including systems of gestures, proxemics, prosody and voice qualities), speech and other stereotypes characteristic of the two peoples and so on. The knowledge of such nationally specific facts and phenomena is hard to overestimate.

* * *

The analysis of different points of view shows that various definitions of translation depend on the general underlying ideas of language, communication, thinking; on the respective schools of thinking moulding this or that conception, as well as individual interpretations of this complex phenomenon. For this reason, some linguists are rather pessimistic about giving at present a more or less exhaustive definition of translation as its subject matter is not confined to elements of a language system (phonetics, grammar, lexis, etc) and the/a language in its entirety, nor this or that kind of speech activity or even products of this activity (utterances, texts, discourses, etc). The treatment of translation as a special kind of ‘transbarrier’ interlanguage communication reveals in it equal participation and active interaction of all levels of language systems presupposing their paradigmatic, syntagmatic, semantic, emotional and pragmatic aspects, as well as taking into account differences between SL and TL resulting in compatibility/ incompatibility of linguistic, ethnocultural, mental and other peculiarities. Besides, a lot of various extralinguistic factors (situational, aesthetic, social, technical, etc) are active in translation that cannot be overlooked. R. Lurie compares two related words in Russian and English: коммуналка and communal flat: Английский термин напоминает кухню в г. Беркли в Калифорнии, где группы хиппи развлекаются тем, что варят рис для вкусного вегетарианского обеда, в то время как русское слово вызывает образ ряда больших комнат, выкрашенных в мрачный, коричневый цвет, в каждой из них живёт целая семья, и у всех у них одна общая маленькая кухня, на которой царит удушливая атмосфера от того, о чём нельзя говорить.

In view of the above, translation should be regarded as the focus of interest of scholars in different sciences concerned with various aspects of this complicated human activity the study of which has not, even today, formulated its own methodology properly and largely relies in translation research on the methods of investigation adopted in other disciplines.