Theories of Translation

J. Williams

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781137319388
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: Literary Criticism for Comparative Literature
• Index: Literature

Presents the most important theories in Translation Studies that have emerged over the last 50 years. Particularly innovative is the inclusion of theories from outside North America and Europe, theoretical perspectives on recent technological developments and a consideration of the nature of theory in the field.

1

Of Theorists and Theories

Douglas Robinson has claimed that translation theorists are engaged in ‘attempts to make sense of what they’re doing and why, and of how both they and their work fit into larger social and aesthetic contexts’ (1997a: xx). In this chapter we shall be asking who these theorists are, how they conceive the goals of their theories and what qualifies as a translation theory.

1.1 Who are the theorists?

The first category of theorists identified in the TS literature is translators themselves. Indeed, the earliest writings on translation, both in Europe (Munday, 2009b: 1) and in China (Tang, 2007: 359), were produced by practising translators.

Chesterman argues that ‘a translator must have a theory of translation: to translate without a theory is to translate blind’ (2000a: 3). He goes on to argue that ‘theoretical concepts can be essential tools for thought and decision-making during the translation process’ and claims that translation theories can be useful tools for translators, trainees and their teachers. There is another sense, too, in which translators ‘must’ have a theory of translation: as all human activity is based on certain assumptions (or theories), translators have certain assumptions about the act of translating whether they are aware of them or not. The decisions taken by a translator over the course of a translation job – about register, terminology or layout, for example – are taken on the basis of theoretical considerations.

Indeed, Pym takes the view that ‘translators are theorizing all the time’ (2010: 1), that the very act of translation, which involves generating a range of solutions to a particular translation problem and then selecting from this range one solution, is in itself an act of theorizing. Pym distinguishes between ‘this private, internal theorizing’ (2010: 1) and ‘public theory’, which develops out of ‘disagreements over different ways of translating’ (2010: 2).

For Robinson, translators engage in Translation Theory when they ‘write prefaces to or letters about their work’ (1997a: xviii). Thus, translators become theorists when they comment on their work in paratexts such as translator’s notes and prefaces or in correspondence with publishers or friends. Nowadays this might also include the email correspondence between a translator and a postgraduate student who is engaged in research on texts which the translator has translated. Robinson distinguishes between this kind of theorizing and ‘formal Translation Theory’, which he does not define but which by default must mean those texts in his 1997 anthology which are devoted exclusively to theorizing about translation such as Addison’s essay in The Spectator in 1711 (1997a: 190–2) or Schleiermacher’s landmark lecture in Berlin in 1813 (1997a: 225–39).

It is to ‘formal Translation Theory’ that we will now turn our attention because the second category of theorists comprises scholars who have actively engaged with Translation Theory. Such theorists come from a wide range of backgrounds across the globe, as can be illustrated by the following three examples. The Scottish phonetician J.C. Catford took the view that ‘the theory of translation is essentially a theory of applied linguistics’ (1965: 19). The Israeli literary critic and translator Gideon Toury insisted that theorizing about translation should take translations themselves as the starting point because ‘translations are facts of target cultures; on occasion facts of a special status. Sometimes even constituting identifiable (sub) systems of their own, but of the target culture in any event’ (1995: 29). The Chinese scholar Martha Cheung explains in the introduction to the first volume of her pioneering Anthology of Chinese Discourse on Translation that she chose the term ‘discourse’ in preference to ‘theory’ or ‘thought’ in order to ‘highlight the point that no writing is done in an ideological vacuum’ (2006b: 1). She goes on to state her own approach as ‘an ideology of intervention’ which aims both to ‘promote an international TS, one that is less limited by the Eurocentric mode that dominates the present scene’ and to ‘re-root/re-route the development of translation studies in China’ (2006b: 2). The emphasis of the first of these theorists on linguistic theory, the second on systems theory and the third on ideology and power illustrates the theoretical reach of Translation Theory and the multiplicity of sources from which it draws.

The first scholar to propose the name ‘Translation Studies’ for our discipline was James Holmes in a key paper in 1972, entitled ‘The Name and Nature of Translation Studies’ (1972/1988). He conceived of the field as consisting of two branches: a ‘pure’ branch and an ‘applied’ branch. He located Translation Theory in the ‘pure’ branch and further subdivided it into ‘general’ Translation Theory, which aimed to develop a universal theory of translation, and ‘partial’ Translation Theory, which concerned itself with theorizing issues restricted by particular parameters such as medium (e.g. oral or written), text type (e.g. poetry or instruction manual) and time (e.g. eighteenth- or twentieth-century translation activity). For Holmes, the pure branch seems to have been of more importance than the applied branch which deals with translator training, translation aids and translation criticism. Holmes’s ideas, which were subsequently reproduced as a diagram in Toury (1981), remained an important point of orientation for translation scholars for many years. By 1998, however, scholars were beginning to view the Holmes/Toury map as out of date, with Pym questioning whether ‘the Holmes map is automatically suited to what we want to do in translation studies now’ (1998: 2/3). In 2008 Vandepitte proposed a new map, based on strict terminological principles and ordered according to purpose, method and subject (2008: 584–8). A year later Van Doorslaer presented the ‘map’ of TS on which the Benjamins online Translation Studies Bibliography is based, which has four subcategories: approaches, theories, research methods and applied TS (2009: 40). While Holmes’s mapping exercise in 1972 (1988) aimed to sketch out the parameters of a new field, the more recent maps are a sign of the maturity as well as the complexity of an established discipline.

One scholar who has made a major contribution to thinking about Translation Theory over the last 15 years is Andrew Chesterman. In the coda to his joint statement with Rosemary Arrojo in the Target Forum on ‘Shared Ground in Translation Studies’, Chesterman provides the following definition of a Translation Theory:

For me, a theory of translation would be a logically linked set of well-corroborated hypotheses (interpretive, descriptive, explanatory and predictive hypotheses). These hypotheses would account for the ways translations (of various types) tend to be related to various kinds of conditions and consequences (historical/cultural/ideological/situational/personal/linguistic etc.). Such a theory would always be open to new refinements etc., and it would always be vulnerable to be replaced by some other theory which better suited some particular purpose. (2000b: 157)

He develops these ideas further in his essay ‘On the Idea of a Theory’ (2007). Here he begins by establishing that a theory is both an instrument of understanding (e.g. a way of understanding translation) and a form of understanding (e.g. the conceptualization of that understanding). He then outlines five types of theories. The first type he discusses are myths, such as the Babel myth in Western Translation Theory which has resulted in a view of translation as always inferior to another, previous text. The fact that we call this earlier text in English the ‘original’ reflects the status traditionally assigned to it in English-speaking cultures, although, as we shall see in the course of this book, that status is not universal and is no longer as uncontested in the English-speaking world as it once was. Metaphors account for Chesterman’s second type of theory, for metaphors are ways of conceptualizing translation. Chesterman’s own metaphor, the meme, encapsulated in his Memes of Translation (2000a), implies that translation is a form of propagation and mutation. The third type of theory is concerned with models of translation: comparative models which compare and contrast translations with other types of text; process models which investigate the translation process from a variety of perspectives; and causal models which attempt to identify the causes (and effects) at work in the production and reception of translations. The fourth type of theory comprises hypotheses, the starting point of any theoretical endeavour (see Williams and Chesterman, 2002). Here Chesterman outlines the types of hypotheses – interpretive, descriptive, explanatory and predictive – which are found in TS. The fifth and final type of theory has to do with structured research programmes, which are based on a core of agreed fundamental principles surrounded by a ‘protective belt of supplementary assumptions and hypotheses to be tested, protecting the hard core’ (2007: 5). Chesterman considers this to be rare in TS and identifies only two examples: Polysystems Theory and corpus research (see Chapter 2). However, with the growing number of large-scale research projects such as the PACTE project in Spain and the TransComp project in Austria/Germany this type of theoretical work is set to become more important in the field.

More recently Anthony Pym’s Exploring Translation Theories (2010) provides an overview of Western Translation Theory. As we noted in the Introduction, Pym takes as his starting point the concept of equivalence. Following that, he goes on to discuss the paradigms of purpose, description, uncertainty, localization and cultural translation.

Other Western scholars such as Tymoczko have argued for a reconceptualization of Translation Theory to incorporate ‘the thinking of non-Western peoples about this central human activity’ (2006: 14). The Jamaican scholar R. Anthony Lewis makes a plea for Translation Theory to take hybridity into account and to become ‘less reliant on notions such as target language and source language, understood as closed, homogenous systems’ (2007: 32).

Martha Cheung has drawn attention to fundamental differences in the meaning of ‘theory’ in Western and Chinese traditions. In Western discourse theory is based on ‘systematic reasoning’ (2006a: 90), whereas in the Chinese tradition Translation Theory, which is grounded in professional practice and expected to inform that practice, draws on classical Chinese aesthetics and poetics, ‘both of which operate not along the axis of systematic reasoning but with a (loose) cluster of related concepts whose meanings are open to constant definition and redefinition’ (2006a: 91). According to Cheung, such differences make it imperative for scholars of both traditions to problematize their own and each other’s notions of theory.

Harish Trivedi, in surveying the terms used for ‘translation’ in a number of Indian languages, cautions against enlisting these terms ‘under the flag of Western “translation”’ in what he views as the continuation of a fraught colonial North–South relationship (2006: 117). In a discussion of the relative lack of theorizing about translation in India, Kothari and Wakabayashi conclude that this is due to the fact that traditionally Indians have moved between a range of native languages and cultures; they suggest there is a ‘link between “lived translation” and a relative lack of theorizing’ (2009: 13). They propose as a corollary ‘that largely monolingual cultures are more likely to be aware of translation as a distinct act and more active in theorizing it’ (2009: 13). In a study of translation in East Asia, Wakabayashi has attributed ‘the relative dearth of formal theorizing’ to two factors: the culture of scholarship in the region and the (low) status of the academic study of translation (2005: 55).

The third group of theorists are identified by Christiane Nord as ‘lay receivers’ (2001: 191). These are the readers of translations who pronounce judgement on them on the basis of their ‘subjective theory’. Nord explains that ‘[...] the receivers of a translation are not normally aware that their theory is subjective;many of them would not be able to define or describe it. Subjective theories need not be consistent; they often include even incompatible or contradictory elements’ (2001: 188) [emphasis in the original]. This is the kind of uninformed theory which we encountered at the beginning of this book: translated novels are identical to their STs; translations are always inferior; translation is a matter of replacing words.

Such subjective theories can be particularly influential when penned by literary critics in the broadsheets. Fawcett, who undertook a study of reviews of translated literature in the British Sunday newspaper The Observer between 1992 and 1999, concluded that the reviewers subscribed to a theory of translation which preferred translations to read like original English texts. He also noted a strong aversion to translations which displayed ST interference (Fawcett, 2000). Venuti found similar theories of translation among reviewers of translated literature in the USA (1992, 1995). Such subjective theories of translation can then have a considerable impact on the attitude of readers to foreign literature in translation, as well as affecting the sales of work by foreign authors.

As we shall see, subjective theories of translation are widespread in the software localization industry where many clients assume ‘a oneto-one correspondence between the form, code, and message of the source and target texts’ (Dunne, 2006: 107). They therefore regard translators as automatons, who simply replace a word in one language with an easily identifiable ‘equivalent’ in another language, and view the translation process as repeatable and reproducible. As a result, clients often have completely unrealistic expectations about the time a localization project will take to complete and the cost of the localized product.

Given that language and translation are central to a very large number of commercial, artistic, legal, diplomatic and political activities across the globe and that decisions in these fields are all too often made by people with little understanding of language and translation, subjective theories can have a significant effect not just on publishing but also on marketing, military campaigns and international product launches. Indeed, subjective theories of translation play a role, for good or ill, in intercultural encounters at many levels.

At the time of writing, for example, there is no vetting procedure for court interpreters in Ireland. When this hit the headlines in May 2010 and the Courts Service was asked to comment on the lack of any check being carried out on interpreters in the courts, the response was that there was no problem – and: ‘Where an issue of lack of clarity or understanding arises, the dynamic of the court setting makes this apparent’ (Irish Times, 9 June 2010, p. 7). The theory of translation underpinning this practice is that anyone who speaks a foreign language has the necessary knowledge of the Irish legal system, the command of the legal terminology required in two languages and the ability to interpret in both directions in a court case which could be dealing with topics as diverse as rape, traffic accidents or drug smuggling. Interpreting in a courtroom is therefore unproblematical. Moreover, problems of clarity or understanding only occur with translation into English – since there is normally no means for the judge or legal teams to ascertain any difficulties with translation into any other language. As interpreting in a courtroom is unproblematical, no problems can occur.

In the context of political asylum interviews in the USA, Inghilleri identified a number of implicit theories of interpreting at work (2003). The judges and some untrained interpreters regarded the interpreter as a conduit or ‘disembodied mechanical device’ (2003: 263). The asylum seeker’s lawyer expected the interpreter to be an advocate, providing an interpretation which supported their client’s case – a theory shared by some interpreters from the same cultural background as the applicants. Other (trained) interpreters viewed their role as conveying the message as accurately as possible and making the necessary linguistic and cultural adjustments to do so. At the same time the political asylum hearings were taking place in a monolingual, monocultural setting which was constructed in such a way as to ‘exclude the presence of a cultural or linguistic “other”’ (2003: 259). Inghilleri concludes that in the interaction between the various parties to the interview ‘interpreters may and do find themselves in the middle of potentially conflicting agendas’ (2003: 255). Subjective theories of interpreting can therefore also influence the process and outcome of interpreted events.

As will have become clear by now, theorists in TS have different understandings of ‘theory’, based on their personal experience, their intellectual training and the cultures from which they come. Before investigating the implications of such diversity, let us examine what the theorists and other stakeholders in the field expect from Translation Theory.

1.2 What are the goals of Translation Theory?

TS scholars who have actively engaged with theory (and who belong to the second category of theorists listed above) have identified seven possible goals of Translation Theory. The first of these is description, formulated by Chesterman as follows: ‘to describe what translators do, what strategies they use and what roles they play, under given linguistic and socio-cultural conditions’ (2000a: 48). This approach was pioneered by the Israeli scholars Itamar Even-Zohar and, particularly, Gideon Toury whose Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond has proved hugely influential since its publication in 1995.

Holmes (1972/1988) regards description as the first step towards evolving theories ‘which will serve to explain and predict what translating and translations are and will be’ (1972/1988: 73). Explanation is therefore the second goal of Translation Theory. Neubert takes the view that Translation Theory should produce ‘principles of explanation for a class of phenomena’ (2000a: 25). Many scholars look to theory to provide an explanation for the causes, processes and/or effects of translation (see Toury 1980: 19; Cronin, 1996; Hermans, 1999; Pym, 1998; Chesterman, 2000a: 48). Chesterman has recently suggested 11 ways of using the term ‘explanation’ in English and on this basis has proposed four types of explanations in TS. The first type comprises hermeneutic explanations, such as conceptualizing translat...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Glossary of Terms
• Introduction
• 1. Of Theorists and Theories
• 2. Theories about the Product
• 3. Theories about the Process
• 4. Theories about the Translator
• Conclusion
• References
• Index