Summary of Early Translation Theories PDF

Here's a summary of the early attempts at systematic translation theory based on Munday\'s \*Introducing Translation Studies\*: \#\#\# \*\*1. Pre-1700s Poetry Translation\*\* \- Translation, especially of poetry, was treated as a creative exercise. \- Free translation strategies were commonly use...

Here's a summary of the early attempts at systematic translation theory based on Munday\'s \*Introducing Translation Studies\*: \#\#\# \*\*1. Pre-1700s Poetry Translation\*\* \- Translation, especially of poetry, was treated as a creative exercise. \- Free translation strategies were commonly used, with a focus on novelty over strict adherence to the original text. \#\#\# \*\*2. John Dryden (1631-1700)\*\* \- Dryden outlined three types of translation: \- \*\*Metaphrase\*\*: Literal, word-for-word translation. \- \*\*Paraphrase\*\*: Sense-for-sense translation, focusing on the author's intent rather than strict wording. \- \*\*Imitation\*\*: Looser adaptation, often departing significantly from both the words and sense of the original. \- Dryden preferred \*\*paraphrase\*\*, which he viewed as respecting the author's intent without excessively altering the work. He rejected imitation as it made the translator too visible and was seen as disrespectful to the original author. \- Dryden's theories were prescriptive, setting rules for effective translation. \#\#\# \*\*3. Étienne Dolét (1509-1546)\*\* \- Dolét, aiming to promote Humanism and French language development, outlined five translation principles: 1\. Fully understand the author's meaning. 2\. Master both source and target languages. 3\. Avoid word-for-word translations. 4\. Avoid Latin-based or unusual forms. 5\. Arrange words gracefully to ensure fluency. \- Dolét emphasized reproducing the sense of the original without literal translation. \#\#\# \*\*4. Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813)\*\* \- In his \*Essay on the Principles of Translation\*, Tytler focused on making translations accessible to target readers. \- His three main rules: 1\. Transmit all ideas of the original. 2\. Match the original's style and character. 3\. Ensure the translation reads naturally, retaining the spirit without mere imitation. \- Tytler's approach is considered reader-oriented, prioritizing the reader's understanding. \#\#\# \*\*5. Yan Fu (1854--1921)\*\* \- Influenced by Tytler, Yan Fu outlined three principles that guided early 20th-century Chinese translation: \- \*\*Fidelity\*\* (faithfulness to the original), \- \*\*Fluency\*\* (making the text comprehensible), \- \*\*Elegance\*\* (presenting the text gracefully). \- Yan Fu's principles were later critiqued as vague and hard to implement consistently. \#\#\# \*\*6. Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768--1834)\*\* \- Recognized as a foundational figure in modern Protestant theology and hermeneutics, Schleiermacher contributed to translation theory with a focus on understanding and interpreting texts within their cultural context. This summary captures the key thinkers and their main contributions to early translation theory. Here's a concise summary of the key points from these notes for your exam: \-\-- \#\#\# \*\*1. History of Translation in the West (Lefevere)\*\* \- \*\*Septuagint\*\*: First major translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, which highlights essential elements in translation history: \- \*\*Expertise\*\*: Translators must know their craft. \- \*\*Commission\*\*: Translations are often ordered by authority figures. \- \*\*Trust\*\*: Readers who don't know the original trust the translation\'s accuracy. \- \*\*Image\*\*: A translation shapes the image of the original text, its author, and culture. \- Before the 1800s, translation wasn't about information but about cultural appropriation or pedagogical exercises. \- \*\*Post-1800s\*\*: Different translation approaches emerged to address diverse audiences, with an emphasis on making translated works accessible. \- \*\*Trust and Ideological Shift\*\*: Rise of publishers in the 1700s made profit a priority in translation choices. Philologists later reserved scholarly translations for experts, leading to a more specialized field. \-\-- \#\#\# \*\*2. Translation Theorizing (Anthony Pym)\*\* \- Translators constantly make theoretical decisions when translating, such as whether to use literal terms, explanations, footnotes, or equivalents in the target culture. \- Core terminology includes \*\*source text/target text\*\*, \*\*source language/target language\*\*, and \*\*source culture/target culture\*\*. \- \*\*Binary View in Translation\*\*: Traditional views treat translation as moving content between cultures or languages, but it can also be seen as an act of \*\*updating\*\* and \*\*reinterpreting\*\* over time. \- Translation theories assist translators by: \- Providing solutions for difficult problems. \- Offering questions and answers to improve translation quality. \- Helping translators defend their choices, often with strategic reasoning (e.g., compensatory correspondence). \-\-- \#\#\# \*\*3. Translation Models (Bassnett & Lefevere)\*\* \- \*\*Jerome Model\*\*: \- Originated with Saint Jerome\'s Bible translation, stressing \*\*faithfulness\*\* through literal word-for-word translation. \- Over time, the concept of faithfulness evolved from strict word matching to \*\*strategic choices\*\* made based on context. \- \*\*Horace Model\*\*: \- Focuses on \*\*negotiation\*\* rather than strict faithfulness, where translators meet the needs of both clients and languages. \- Privileged language: Translations tend to favor the dominant language, historically Latin, now often English. \- \*\*Textual Grid Concept\*\*: Cultures may share underlying structures or \"grids\" that shape how texts are structured, which can influence translation strategy across different languages and time periods. \-\-- \#\#\# \*\*Discussion Points (Lefevere)\*\* \- Translation Studies as an interdisciplinary field began in the 1980s, blending linguistics, history, psychology, and other fields. \- Translators are seen as \*\*\"rewriters\"\*\* who shape how literary works are received by the public, influencing their cultural impact as much as or more than the original authors. \-\-- This overview covers the essential elements and provides a basis for discussing the evolution of translation theories and their impact on cultural exchange. This is a detailed and insightful summary of translation theories, with Roman Jakobson and Eugene Nida as pivotal figures. To summarize the main concepts for clarity: 1\. \*\*Roman Jakobson\'s Contributions\*\*: \- Jakobson explored linguistic and semiotic factors in translation, emphasizing \*message equivalence\* across languages. \- He identified three types of translation: \- \*\*Intralingual\*\*: rewording within the same language. \- \*\*Interlingual\*\*: translation between languages. \- \*\*Intersemiotic\*\*: transformation across different modes of communication (e.g., verbal to visual). \- Jakobson believed that while all messages can be translated across languages, poetry's unique form and sense often require creative reimagining. 2\. \*\*Eugene Nida\'s Approach\*\*: \- Influenced by Chomsky's \*generative-transformational grammar\*, Nida focused on the relationship between a sentence's deep (intended meaning) and surface structures (literal expression). \- Nida introduced two types of equivalence in translation: \- \*\*Formal Equivalence\*\*: focusing on accuracy, matching the form and content of the source as closely as possible. This approach often applies in academic or legal contexts. Vinayin the target language (TL) that mirrors the response intended in the source language (SL). \- For Nida, a successful translation should make sense, capture the spirit and style of the original, feel natural, and evoke a similar response. Nida\'s concepts of formal and dynamic equivalence moved translation theory beyond literal word-for-word translation, emphasizing the importance of the reader's experience. This shift helped introduce a reader-centered perspective to translation studies, reflecting cultural nuances and enhancing understanding across linguistic divides. This summary covers Peter Newmark's contributions to translation theory, contrasting his approach with that of Eugene Nida and detailing Newmark\'s pragmatic view on translation methods. To recap the main ideas: 1\. \*\*Newmark's Perspective on Translation\*\*: \- Newmark challenged Nida's \*receptor-oriented approach\*, arguing that \*equivalent effect\* is an \"illusory\" concept, especially when texts are separated from the target language's cultural context. For example, no modern translator of \*Homer\* can replicate the original oral effect on contemporary readers. \- He introduced two main types of translation: \- \*\*Communicative Translation\*\*: This approach seeks to produce an effect on the target audience similar to the original audience's experience. It aligns closely with Nida's \*dynamic equivalence\*. \- \*\*Semantic Translation\*\*: This approach aims to capture the exact meaning of the source text as closely as possible, focusing on language structure and meaning. It's akin to Nida's \*formal equivalence\*. 2\. \*\*Preference for Literal Translation\*\*: \- Newmark favored \*literal translation\* wherever possible, stating that it is often the most practical and valid method if equivalent effect can be maintained. He believed this approach helped maximize efficiency, allowing translators to focus their cognitive energy on the most challenging parts of the text. \- However, when literal or semantic translation leads to an awkward or confusing result in the target text (TT), communicative translation should be prioritized. For example, the German sign \*bissiger Hund\* is better translated as \*beware of the dog!\* rather than the literal \*dog that bites\*. 3\. \*\*Criticism and Emphasis on Aesthetics and Ethics\*\*: \- Newmark's method has faced criticism for being too prescriptive, yet he also emphasized an ethical approach to translation, distinguishing between \*social, non-literary translation\* and more \*authoritative and serious translation\* tasks. Newmark's framework thus offers a flexible, practical approach, encouraging translators to use literal translation where possible but to switch to communicative methods when needed to maintain readability and clarity for the target audience. This summary of Vinay and Darbelnet's approach highlights their influential \*Comparative Stylistics of French and English\*, where they analyzed translation differences between French and English, creating a structured framework that has had a lasting impact on translation studies. Key concepts include: 1\. \*\*Strategies and Procedures\*\*: \- \*Strategy\* refers to the translator's overall orientation (e.g., \*free\* vs. \*literal translation\*, or the orientation toward either the source or target language). \- \*Procedure\* is a specific technique applied to parts of the text (e.g., borrowing a word from the source language or adding explanatory notes in the target language). 2\. \*\*Two Main Strategies and Seven Procedures\*\*: \- Vinay and Darbelnet identified two main strategies: \- \*\*Direct Translation\*\* (synonymous with \*literal translation\*) \- \*\*Oblique Translation\*\* (similar to \*free translation\*). \- Within these strategies, they listed seven procedures: \*\*Direct Translation\*\*: Covers three procedures: \- \*\*Borrowing\*\*: Directly transferring a source language word into the target language, either to fill a semantic gap (e.g., \"sushi\" or \"glasnost\") or to add local flavor. \- \*\*Calque\*\*: A literal translation of phrases or expressions from the source language, such as translating \"science-fiction\" in English as \"science-fiction\" in French. \- \*\*Literal Translation\*\*: Word-for-word translation, considered the best option when the structure and context align. However, it should be avoided when it results in awkwardness or loss of meaning. \*\*Oblique Translation\*\*: Used when literal translation doesn't work, involving four further procedures: \- \*\*Transposition\*\*: Shifting parts of speech without changing meaning (e.g., noun to verb). This can be \*obligatory\* (required by language structure) or \*optional\*. \- \*\*Modulation\*\*: Changing the semantics or perspective of the source language. Vinay and Darbelnet viewed modulation as the hallmark of a skilled translator, requiring a shift like from "it is easy to show" to the French equivalent "il est facile de demontrer." \- \*\*Équivalence (Idiomatic Translation)\*\*: Using stylistic or structural means to convey the same idea idiomatically, especially when two languages express concepts differently. \- \*\*Adaptation\*\*: Modifying cultural references for the target audience, like replacing a cricket reference with one to the Tour de France for French readers. 3\. \*\*Additional Procedures\*\*: \- \*\*Amplification\*\*: Using more words in the target language (TL) than in the source language (SL), often due to syntactic expansion. \- \*\*False Friends\*\*: Recognizing deceptive cognates, where similar-looking words in the SL and TL have different meanings (e.g., French \"librarie\" is a bookstore, not a library). \- \*\*Loss, Gain, and Compensation\*\*: Acknowledging that translation may involve unavoidable loss of nuance, which can be balanced by introducing compensatory gains elsewhere in the target text. \- \*\*Explicitation\*\*: Making implicit details explicit in the TL, especially for culturally or contextually specific items. \- \*\*Generalization\*\*: Using a more general term when the specific term doesn't translate neatly (e.g., translating "computer" simply as "machine"). 4\. \*\*Three Levels of Translation\*\*: \- Vinay and Darbelnet's procedures operate on three levels: \- The \*\*lexicon\*\* (word choice), \- \*\*Syntactic structures\*\* (sentence structure), \- The \*\*message\*\* (overall meaning and context). Vinay and Darbelnet's structured approach provides translators with a comprehensive set of tools, offering options for achieving both accuracy and cultural relevance in translation, especially for complex or culturally embedded texts. This summary highlights key moments and figures in the history of translation in Turkey, particularly focusing on its role in cultural and intellectual modernization. The notes cover influential periods, individuals, and institutional efforts that contributed to the transmission of Western humanist ideals and the shaping of the Turkish language. \#\#\# Key Periods and Figures 1\. \*\*Translation Bureau (Tercüme Bürosu) and the Turkish Renaissance\*\*: \- The Translation Bureau, founded in the early years of the Turkish Republic, played a pivotal role in Turkey's Westernization process by promoting humanism inspired by the Renaissance. Its translation of Western classics aimed to foster a "Turkish Renaissance," a term used by scholars, officials, and writers in the 1930s and 40s to describe Turkey\'s cultural shift toward a Western-oriented humanism and enlightenment. This movement, they hoped, would create a "humanist spirit" and "social enlightenment" within Turkish society. \- \*\*Vedat Günyol\*\* (1911-2004) viewed the Bureau as central to Turkey\'s Westernization and cultural awakening. He saw it as an invaluable resource for the Turkish youth and for transforming the nation. \- \*\*Azra Erhat\*\* (1915-1982), another prominent figure in Turkish humanism, advocated for the Bureau's role in leading Turkey toward enlightenment through Western classics, foreseeing its impact on Turkey's cultural development. 2\. \*\*Nurullah Ataç\*\* (1898-1957): \- A notable literary translator and columnist, Ataç saw his era as an "age of translation" marked by a shift in Turkish identity and language away from Perso-Arabic influences toward the Western classical languages, facilitated in part by the 1928 Alphabet Reform. \- Ataç believed that understanding Western texts required transforming the Turkish language, arguing that Turkey's Islamic past had stifled creativity, and that a shift toward Western models was necessary for modernization. \#\#\# Historical Developments in Translation 1\. \*\*Seljuk and Ottoman Periods\*\*: \- During the Seljuk period (1075-1318), Persian was the dominant language, with translators known as dragomans facilitating communication among the diverse ethnic and religious groups in Anatolia. \- Under the Ottomans, particularly in the reign of Mehmed II, translation expanded into scientific and literary fields, integrating Persian and Arabic works to enhance knowledge in areas like mathematics, geography, medicine, and art. 2\. \*\*Tanzimat Era (1839-1876)\*\*: \- The Tanzimat Edict of 1839, influenced by European powers, marked a shift in cultural orientation from Eastern to Western influences. This period saw translations of European literary and philosophical works, bringing new themes and ideas into Turkish literature and thought. \- Serialized translations of works like \*Les Misérables\* and \*The Count of Monte Cristo\* became popular, and figures such as Ahmet Vefik Paşa, Şemseddin Sami, and Ahmet Mithat were prominent translators. 3\. \*\*Institutional Translation Efforts (18th C. to Early Republic)\*\*: \- The early 18th-century Tulip Period laid the groundwork for institutionalized translation, primarily for educational purposes. Ottoman ministries oversaw the translation of textbooks for higher education, promoting knowledge dissemination. \- The most significant institutionalized effort came during Hasan Ali Yücel's term as Minister of Education (1938-1946). The Translation Bureau, particularly active from 1940-1946, translated over a thousand works, including Greek, Latin, Chinese, Russian, and Indian classics, fostering a foundation for Turkish language and literature studies as well as promoting literacy. \#\#\# Major Themes in Translation History \- \*\*Role of Translation in Cultural Change\*\*: Translation was a crucial tool for Turkey's engagement with Western ideas, especially in the context of secular, educational reforms and nation-building efforts. \- \*\*Influence of Political and Social Contexts\*\*: The transition to a multi-party system and other political changes influenced translation priorities, often intertwining with sociocultural developments. \- \*\*Interdisciplinary Involvement\*\*: Figures from various fields such as sociology, history, literature, and archaeology contributed to translation efforts, reflecting its interdisciplinary nature and its impact on shaping Turkish intellectual life. These translation efforts in Turkey illustrate how translation served not only as a linguistic activity but as a means of cultural negotiation, modernization, and identity formation throughout the Republic's history.