Typology of translation

The analysis of various manuals on translation testifies to a great variety of conceptions and models of translation which focus on the study of different types of translation. In modern translatology of text scholars distinguish between artistic and special text translation, interpretative translation and translation-transcoding, language and culture oriented translation, free and literal translation, etc. Like any other scientific classification, the description of different kinds of translation is based on some underlying principle.

The category of the agent of translation is the basis of distinguishing between human and machine translation; the time correlation between perception of an original text and its translation underlies the division of oral translation into simultaneous and consecutive; the conditions under which an original text is perceived and translation is made serve as a basis for distinguishing between four kinds of translation: written – written, oral – oral, written – oral, oral - written, and other principles of classification.

Traditionally, main types of translation are singled out on the basis of two criteria: predominant communicative function of the SL text and the form of speech involved in translation [Komissarov, Koralova 1990]. According to the first criterion all translations are divided into literary and informative. Literary translation involves literary texts (prose, poetry, drama) the main function of which is to make an emotional or aesthetic impression upon the reader. Informative translation deals with such texts which have for their primary concern to convey some information to the reader. To non-literary texts in the specified sense we refer scientific, technical texts, diplomatic, newspaper materials, official and business papers, public speeches. True, the line of demarcation between literary and non-literary texts is not very rigid as both the types combine in various proportions some elements of rational (technical) and emotional language that should be properly rendered in translation.

In keeping with the second criterion – the form of speech involved - translations are divided into written and oral with a further subdivision of both into several groups which are singled out on the basis of several combined criteria. So we can speak about full written translation of technical texts and their abridged versions – synopsis, précis, express-information translation. Within oral translation it is possible to speak about consecutive, simultaneous, whispered translation, sight translation, escort and some others.

Besides the two criteria mentioned above there are a number of others. Of great theoretical and practical value is the classification of types of translation elaborated by the late professor L.S. Barkhudarov who used the criterion of the degree of adequacy of a TLT to a SLT [Бархударов 1974]. Accordingly, the author singles out three types of translation: adequate, literal and free. It is believed that literal and free translations should be described as faulty, though for different reasons. Literal translation retains not only the spirit, but also the letter of the original text often to the detriment of the content and the norms of TL. Free translation was most favoured in the so-called corrective translation period since translators were more interested in perfecting the original text than its adequate rendering, hence there was more of a translator’s personality than that of the author in a translation text. True, it should be admitted that even today there is no unanimity of opinion concerning this division of types of translation especially with regard to the so-called literal translation. Since scholars now shift their attention to a particular status of the language of translation texts they justify a translator’s desire to retain in translation semantic and structural components of a SL text in order to achieve certain communicative tasks (see articles in [Проблемы обучения… 2005]).

Adequate translation is regarded as the best in dealing with any type of text, literary or informative, written or oral. However, the question of criteria set for adequate transaltion is still not solved. The advocates of microlinguistic theories of translation mention such criteria of adequacy as correct and full reproduction of the content of a SLT, retaining functional and stylistic uses of its formal features, identity of information conveyed by both texts, etc. Communicative theories of translation emphasize precise correlation of the two texts in their communicative value, similar effect upon the addressee of both texts. Th. Savory compiled a list of criteria set for adequate translation by various authors and showed that most of them are mutually exclusive. Ezra Pound claimed that a translator should stick to the principle ‘more sense and less grammar’.

E. Nida discriminated between ‘formal’ and ‘dynamic’ equivalence equating the latter with the so-called ‘equivalent effect’. According to him, formal (or ‘linguistic) equivalence of translation (qualified by the author as gloss translation) implies reproduction by a traslator of the form and content of the SL text as close to the original as possible. In this type of translation a message against the cultural background of a TL is constantly contrasted with a message against the cultural background of a SL and thus necessitates a lot of explanatory notes and comments. ‘Dynamic’ (or, to be more precise, pragmatic) equivalence permits greater freedom in the choice of language means used in translation provided they create an effect upon the TLT recipient comparable to that of the SLT upon the original text reader. In other words, a TL recipient is not expected to understand the Tl cultural context.

In modern translation theories accent is laid on the correlation not only between SLT and TLT, but also on the correlation between mental structures of speakers of the two languages (cognitive approach), the criterion of TLT acceptability in the new ethnocultural environment.

For the practical purposes it is possible to sum up the most important criteria that apply to evaluate the adequacy of translation:

(1) it fully and correctly renders the sense of an original text,

(2) it follows the rules and norms of TL,

(3) it retains stylistic peculiarities of a SLT, the functions of expressive means and stylistic devices used in it, peculiarities of the author’s individual language and style,

(4) it conveys the author’s message and intent,

(5) it arouses a reaction on the part of a TLT reader similar to that of a SLT reader.

The last criterion was introduced by E.Nida who claims that the dynamic equivalence suggests the so-called “equivalent effect” of the two texts that presupposes the choice of natural means of verbal expression in TL, while the recipient of the TLT is expected to display a pattern of behaviour relevant to the context of his own culture.

It should be noted, however, that the last demand of adequate translation is not universally accepted as unlike the other four requirements its validity is difficult or even impossible to check practically.

Prof. R.K. Minyar-Beloruchev believes that an exhaustive classification of kinds of translation should be founded on five mental mechanisms which govern translator’s activity (connected with perception of an original text, its retention in memory, transfer from one language to another, choice of the form of translation, temporal distribution of translation operations). These mental mechanisms are in their turn linked to diverse conditions that characterize different kinds of translations. For example, conditions of perception of an original text can be connected with either auditory or visual channels, single or repeated perception of a text; conditions of retention in memory of a text depend on its size and so on. The scholar tries to verify the validity of this approach on the basis of the most popular kinds of translation: written, simultaneous, sight, consecutive, paragraph-phrasal, two-way translation [Миньяр-Белоручев 1980]. Each of these kinds of translation is described in terms of mental mechanisms involved in them and concrete conditions of bilingual intercourse.

It seems that the above mentioned approach provides a solid foundation for describing different kinds of translation, but firstly, it lays stress on a psychological basis leaving linguistic aspect in the shade; secondly, it brings together a variety of different kinds of translation which differ greatly in their nature (cf. two-way and sight translation); thirdly, it contrasts kinds of translation which share their basic features (cf. consecutive and paragraph-phrasal translation).

For practical purposes it is convenient to use, with some amendments, the typology of classification advanced by prof. P.G. Chebotarev that brings together a number of classificatory criteria: content, form, and genre [Чеботарев 2006]. The author uses the terms: types, kinds and genres of translation.

Types of translation are singled out on the basis of the character of relationship between the SLT and TLT and the volume of information retained in translation. Accordingly, it is possible to distinguish the following 4 types:

· full translation,

· abridged translation,

· enlarged translation,

· modified translation.

The first one retains the full volume of information expressed in SLT, the second selects some passages for translation or reduces the information retained in a TLT only to the most important points and leaving out less important, the third type includes various comments, explanations, etc by a translator which contribute to a better understanding of an original text and the fourth type refers to synopsis and precis translation. In our opinion, this classification into types needs some clarification as it is not quite clear how to distinguish between abridged and modified translation. Modified translation including in the given approach both synopsis and precis translation should be looked upon as a variety of abridged translation.

Kinds of translation take into account the form of the language that is involved in the translation process. Hence, this criterion underlies the division of translation into the following kinds:

1) oral (simultaneous, consecutive, sight, escort interpreting, whispered interpreting, conference interpreting, etc),

2) written,

3) combined oral-written (written translation of a lecture, tape-recording, abridged sight translation, etc).

In the above classification of kinds of translation it might be useful to single out two subvarieties within the third group: combined oral-written and written-oral.

Besides, in actual conditions of international communication in various spheres it seems to be more appropriate to speak about a new type of translation – the so-called multi-medium translation. It is widely used today in translating films (subtitling and dubbing), translation for the theatre and advertising, song lyric translation, on-line multi-lingual programmes and some other kinds of intercourse.

Genres of translation include the following varieties:

a) translation of political and publicistic texts,

b) technical (scientific, speciality) translation,

c) military translation,

d) fiction translation,

e) legal translation,

f) commercial translation,

g) translation of religious texts, etc.

* * *

New principles of classifying types of translation were recently elaborated in translation theories which view translating as inseparable from the concept of culture. The semiotic interpretation of translation in R. Jacobson’s tripartite theory linked translation studies and cultural semiotics because “the general notion of culture might be described as the process of total translation” [Torop 2002: 593]. In keeping with a broad interpretation of culture as operating largely through translational activity P. Torop singles out 4 translation types on the basis of the model of a universal translation process [Тороп 1995] which include: 1) textual translation or ordinary translation; 2) metatextual translation or description in the form of criticism, advertising, etc; 3) intextual and intertextual translation or transmitting or introducing a foreign word into a text; 4) extratextual translation or translating out of a text (e.g. adapting literature to a film, etc). These types of translation are based on viewing culture as a mechanism of translation and viewing translation as a working mechanism of culture.