Sense-for-sense translation

Last updated

Sense-for-sense translation is the oldest norm for translating. It fundamentally means translating the meaning of each whole sentence before moving on to the next, and stands in normative opposition to word-for-word translation (also known as literal translation).

Contents

History

Jerome, a Roman Catholic priest, theologian, and historian coined the term "sense-for-sense" when he developed this translation method when was tasked by Pope Damasus to review the existing translations of the Gospel and produce a more reliable Latin version. [1] He described this method in his "Letter to Pammachius", where he said that, "except of course in the case of Holy Scripture, where even the syntax contains a mystery," he translates non verbum e verbo sed sensum de sensu: not word for word but sense for sense. [2] He adopted a framework that corrected the mistakes of previous translators as well as the alterations of critical scholars and the errors made by careless copyists [3] by collecting the oldest Greek manuscripts, which he compared with the Old Latin versions, and translated the scripture into a version that is close as possible to the original meaning. [3]

Jerome did not invent the concept of sense-for-sense translation. It is believed that it was first proposed by Cicero in De optimo genere oratorum ("The Best Kind of Orator"). In this text, he said that in translating from Greek to Latin, "I did not think I ought to count them out to the reader like coins, but to pay them by weight, as it were." [4] Cicero did not mention sense-for-sense in his works but it is considered to be a type of "segmental" theory, which is attributed to him and Horace. This translation approach is based on segmentation, which considers the how long a segment (word, phrase, or sentence) is before moving on to the next. [5]

Jerome was not the originator of the term "word-for-word" either. It has possibly also been borrowed from Cicero as well, or possibly from Horace, who warned the writer interested in retelling ancient tales in an original way Nec verbo verbum curabit reddere / fidus interpretes: "not to try to render them word for word [like some] faithful translator." [6]

Some have read that passage in Horace differently. Boethius in 510 CE and Johannes Scotus Eriugena in the mid-9th century read it to mean that translating literally is "the fault/blame of the faithful interpreter/translator," and fear that they have incurred it. [7] Burgundio of Pisa in the 1170s and Sir Richard Sherburne in 1702 recognize that Horace is advising not translators but original writers, but still assume that he is calling all translation literal. [7] Finally, John Denham in 1656 and André Lefevere in 1992 take Horace to be warning translators against translating literally. [7]

Similar concepts

Paraphrase

John Dryden by Sir Godfrey Kneller John Dryden by Sir Godfrey Kneller, Bt.jpg
John Dryden by Sir Godfrey Kneller

In John Dryden’s 1680 preface to his translation of Ovid's Epistles, he proposed dividing translation into three parts called: metaphrase, paraphrase and imitation. [8] Metaphrase is word-for-word and line by line translation from one language into another. [9] Paraphrase is sense-for-sense translation where the message of the author is kept but the words are not so strictly followed as the sense, which too can be altered or amplified. [10] Imitation is the use of either metaphrase or paraphrase but the translator has the liberty to choose which is appropriate and how the message will be conveyed. [11]

Leaving the reader in peace

In 1813, during his “Über die Verschiedenen Methoden des Übersetzens” lecture, [12] Friedrich Schleiermacher proposed the idea where “[E]ither the translator leaves the author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him, or he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and he moves the author towards him”. [13]

Dynamic equivalence

In 1964,[ citation needed ] Eugene Nida described translation as having two different types of equivalence: formal and dynamic equivalence. [14] Formal equivalence is when there is focus on the message itself (in both form and content); [15] the message in the target language should match the message in the source language as closely as possible. [16] In dynamic equivalence, there is less concern with matching the message in the target language with the message in the source language; [17] the goal is to produce the same relationship between target text and target audience as there was with the original source text and its audience. [18]

Communicative translation

In 1981, Peter Newmark referred to translation as either semantic (word-for-word) or communicative (sense-for-sense). [19] He stated that semantic translation is one that is source language bias, literal and faithful to the source text and communicative translation is target language bias, free and idiomatic. [20] A semantic translation's goal is to stay as close as possible to the semantic and syntactic structures of the source language, allowing the exact contextual meaning of the original. [21] A communicative translation's goal is to produce an effect on the readers as close as possible to that as produced upon the readers of the original. [22]

Idiomatic translation

Lawrence Venuti Lawrence Venuti.jpeg
Lawrence Venuti

In addition to these concepts, in 1990, Brian Mossop presented his concept of idiomatic and unidiomatic translation. [23] Idiomatic translation is when the message of the source text is conveyed the way a target language writer would convey it, rather than staying to the way in which it was conveyed in the source text. [24] Unidiomatic translation is innovative and translates individual words. [25]

Domesticated translation

In 1994, also in modern translation studies, Lawrence Venuti introduced the concepts of domestication and foreignization, which are based on concepts from Friedrich Schleiermacher's 1813 lecture. [26] Domestication is the adaption of culture-specific terms or cultural context, where as foreignization is the preservation of the original cultural context of the source text (in terms of settings, names, etc.). [26]

Venuti also described domestication as being fluent and transparent strategies that result in acculturation, [26] where “a cultural other is domesticated, made intelligible”. [27] Schleiermacher's distinction between "bringing the author to the reader" (domestication) and "taking the reader to the author" [28] (foreignization), dealt with a social concern and Venuti's distinction between domestication and foreignization deals with ethical principles. [26]

Related Research Articles

An idiom is a phrase or expression that typically presents a figurative, non-literal meaning attached to the phrase. Some phrases which become figurative idioms, however, do retain the phrase's literal meaning. Categorized as formulaic language, an idiom's figurative meaning is different from the literal meaning. Idioms occur frequently in all languages; in English alone there are an estimated twenty-five million idiomatic expressions.

Translation studies is an academic interdiscipline dealing with the systematic study of the theory, description and application of translation, interpreting, and localization. As an interdiscipline, translation studies borrows much from the various fields of study that support translation. These include comparative literature, computer science, history, linguistics, philology, philosophy, semiotics, and terminology.

The terms dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence, coined by Eugene Nida, are associated with two dissimilar translation approaches that are employed to achieve different levels of literalness between the source and target text, as evidenced in biblical translation.

Literal translation, direct translation, or word-for-word translation is a translation of a text done by translating each word separately without looking at how the words are used together in a phrase or sentence.

There have been various debates concerning the proper family of biblical manuscripts and translation techniques that should be used to translate the Bible into other languages. Biblical translation has been employed since the first translations were made from the Hebrew Bible into Greek and Aramaic. Until the Late Middle Ages, the Western Church used the Latin Vulgate almost entirely while the Eastern Church, centered in Constantinople, mostly used the Greek Byzantine text. Beginning in the 14th century, there have been increasing numbers of vernacular translations into various languages. With the development of modern printing techniques, these increased enormously.

Cultural translation is the practice of translation while respecting and showing cultural differences. This kind of translation solves some issues linked to culture, such as dialects, food or architecture.

Antoine Berman was a French translator, philosopher, historian and theorist of translation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Translation</span> Transfer of the meaning of something in one language into another

Translation is the communication of the meaning of a source-language text by means of an equivalent target-language text. The English language draws a terminological distinction between translating and interpreting ; under this distinction, translation can begin only after the appearance of writing within a language community.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lawrence Venuti</span>

Lawrence Venuti is an American translation theorist, translation historian, and a translator from Italian, French, and Catalan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugene Nida</span> American linguist

Eugene A. Nida was an American linguist who developed the dynamic-equivalence Bible-translation theory and one of the founders of the modern discipline of translation studies.

Skopos theory, a theory in the field of translation studies, employs the prime principle of a purposeful action that determines a translation strategy. The intentionality of a translational action stated in a translation brief, the directives, and the rules guide a translator to attain the expected target text translatum.

Transcreation is a term coined from the words "translation" and "creation", and a concept used in the field of translation studies to describe the process of adapting a message from one language to another, while maintaining its intent, style, tone, and context. A successfully transcreated message evokes the same emotions and carries the same implications in the target language as it does in the source language. It is related to the concept of localization, which similarly involves comprehensively adapting a translated text for the target audience. Transcreation highlights the translator's creative role. Unlike many other forms of translation, transcreation also often involves adapting not only words, but video and images to the target audience.

Domestication and foreignization are strategies in translation, regarding the degree to which translators make a text conform to the target culture. Domestication is the strategy of making text closely conform to the culture of the language being translated to, which may involve the loss of information from the source text. Foreignization is the strategy of retaining information from the source text, and involves deliberately breaking the conventions of the target language to preserve its meaning. These strategies have been debated for hundreds of years, but the first person to formulate them in their modern sense was Lawrence Venuti, who introduced them to the field of translation studies in 1995 with his book The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. Venuti's innovation to the field was his view that the dichotomy between domestication and foreignization was an ideological one; he views foreignization as the ethical choice for translators to make.

Anthony David Pym is a scholar best known for his work in translation studies.

<i>Translation Changes Everything</i> Book by Lawrence Venuti

Translation changes everything: Theory and practice is a collection of essays written by translation theorist Lawrence Venuti. during the period 2000–2012.

Translation criticism is the systematic study, evaluation, and interpretation of different aspects of translated works. It is an interdisciplinary academic field closely related to literary criticism and translation theory. It includes marking of student translations, and reviews of published translations.

<i>The Translators Invisibility</i>

The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation is a translation studies book by Lawrence Venuti originally released in 1995. A second, substantially revised edition was published in 2008.

Humour in translation can be caused by translation errors, because of irregularities and discrepancies between certain items that translators attempt to translate. This could be due to the ignorance of the translator, as well as the untranslatability of the text as a result of linguistic or cultural differences. In addition, translation errors can be caused by the language incompetence of the translator in the target language, resulting in unintended ambiguity in the message conveyed. Translation errors can distort the intended meaning of the author or speaker, to the point of absurdity and ludicrousness, giving a humorous and comedic effect.

The Interpretive Theory of Translation (ITT) is a concept from the field of Translation Studies. It was established in the 1970s by Danica Seleskovitch, a French translation scholar and former Head of the Paris School of Interpreters and Translators. A conference interpreter herself, Seleskovitch challenged the view prevailing at the time that translation was no more than a linguistic activity, one language being merely transcoded into another. She described translation as a triangular process: from one language to sense and from sense to the other language. She coined the name Interpretive Theory of Translation and, even before Translation Studies became a field in its own right, introduced the process of translation into the vast area of cognitive research. In order to verify the first observations made as a practitioner, Seleskovitch went on to write a doctoral thesis. Soon, a handful of conference interpreters interested in research joined her at ESIT.

Translating <i>Beowulf</i> Challenges of translating the Old English poem Beowulf

The difficulty of translating Beowulf from its compact, metrical, alliterative form in a single surviving but damaged Old English manuscript into any modern language is considerable, matched by the large number of attempts to make the poem approachable, and the scholarly attention given to the problem.

References

  1. ↑ Coogan, Michael David; Brettler, Marc Zvi; Newsom, Carol Ann; Perkins, Pheme (2007). The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books: New Revised Standard Version. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 466. ISBN   9780195288803.
  2. ↑ Douglas Robinson, ed., Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche (Manchester, UK: St. Jerome, 1997, 2ed 2002), 25.
  3. 1 2 Freedman, Harry (2016). The Murderous History of Bible Translations: Power, Conflict and the Quest for Meaning. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 45. ISBN   9781472921673.
  4. ↑ Robinson, ed., Western Translation Theory, 9.
  5. ↑ Robinson, Douglas (2014). Translation and Empire. Oxon: Routledge. p. 50. ISBN   9781900650083.
  6. ↑ Robinson, ed., Western Translation Theory, 15.
  7. 1 2 3 For Boethius, Eriugena, Burgundio, and Denham, see Robinson, ed., Western Translation Theory, 35, 37, 42, and 156. For Sherburne, see T. R. Steiner, English Translation Theory, 1650–1800 (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1975), 89. André Lefevere's translation of Horace appears in Lefevere, ed., Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook (London and New York: Routledge, 1992), 15: "Do not worry about rendering word for word, faithful translator, but render sense for sense." This of course not only makes Horace's advice for the writer into advice for the translator, but anachronistically imports Jerome's coinage back into Horace's dictum, which actually preceded it by four centuries. For discussion, see also Douglas Robinson, Who Translates (Albany: SUNY Press, 2001), 170–174.
  8. ↑ Lawrence Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader. 3rd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2012.), page 38.
  9. ↑ Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader, 3rd ed., 38.
  10. ↑ Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader, 3rd ed., 38.
  11. ↑ Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader, 3rd ed., 38.
  12. ↑ Yves Gambier, Luc Van Doorslaer, Handbook of Translation Studies, (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub., 2010.), 40.
  13. ↑ Gambier, Handbook of Translation Studies, 40.
  14. ↑ Lawrence Venuti,. The Translation Studies Reader. (New York: Routledge, 2000.), page 129.
  15. ↑ Lawrence Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader. (New York: Routledge, 2000.), page 129.
  16. ↑ Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader, 129.
  17. ↑ Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader, 129.
  18. ↑ Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader, 129.
  19. ↑ Peter Newmark, Approaches to Translation, (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981)
  20. ↑ Newmark, Approaches to Translation, 31
  21. ↑ Newmark, Approaches to Translation, 39
  22. ↑ Newmark, Approaches to Translation, 39
  23. ↑ Brian Mossop, "Translating Institutions and “Idiomatic” Translation." Meta: Journal des traducteurs 35, no. 2 (January 1990)
  24. ↑ Mossop, “Translating Institutions,”, 343
  25. ↑ Mossop, “Translating Institutions,”, 343
  26. 1 2 3 4 Gambier, Handbook of Translation Studies, 40.
  27. ↑ Lawrence Venuti, "Genealogies of Translation Theory: Schleiermacher." TTR : Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 4, no. 2 (1991)
  28. ↑ Douglas Robinson, ed. Western Translation Theory From Herodotus to Nietzsche. (Manchester: St. Jerome., 2002)

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.