LINGUISTICS-ORIENTED

TRANSLATION THEORY
Yusuf Sargz

A history<
Unproductive period in translation theory
during WW II, as in other fields.
A focus shift from solely literary translation
towards non-literary texts in the post-war era.
Non-literary texts interested scholars from
various sub-disciplines of linguistics.
Non-literary texts: Emphasis on diplomacy and
growing international trade.

Roman Jakobson
Best known in translation studies for his essay, 'On
linguistic aspects of translation studies.
a triadic categorisation of translation activities:
1) Interlingual translation (or rewording: interpretation
of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same
language.
2) intralingual (or translation proper): interpretation of
verbal signs by means of some other language.
3) intersemiotic translation (or transmutation):
interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems.

Why important?
goes further than the traditional systems
sees translation from a semiotic viewpoint as a
transfer of signs, as an interpretation of signs by
means of other signs
goes beyond language in the verbal sense
His distinction between interlingual and
intralingual translation is now fundamental in TV
subtitling for the deaf.
Intersemiotic translation is an integral element in
multimedial and multimodal transfer.

 The intralingual translation either uses

synonymies or resorts to a circumlocution
(dolaylama).
Synonymy, as a rule, is not complete equivalence:
hayat(n kaybetmek) / yaam(n yitirmek)
Likewise, on the level of interlingual translation,
there is ordinarily no full equivalence between
code-units, while messages may serve as
adequate interpretations of alien code-units or
messages.

 All cognitive experience and its classification is

conveyable in any existing language. Whenever
there is deficiency, terminology may be qualified
and amplified by loan-words or loan-translations,
neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by
circumlocutions. (Jakobson 1959: 3)

Circumlocutions may even be contradictory: uzay

gemisi.

Vinay and Darbelnet

Best known for the article titled 'A
methodology for translation.'
They offer 7 translation procedures, divided
into 2 main categories:
1) direct (or literal) translation: borrowing,
calque, literal translation
2) oblique translation: transposition,
modulation, equivalence, adaptation

Direct translation
Some translation tasks allows us to transfer the
SL message element by element into the TL,
because it is based on either
(I) parallel categories (structural parallelism), or
(II) on parallel concepts (metalinguistic
parallelisms).
Gaps, or lacunae, must be filled by
corresponding elements in the TL, so that the
overall impression is the same for the two
messages.

Oblique translation
'It may, however, also happen that, because of
structural or metalinguistic differences, certain
stylistic effects cannot be transposed into the TL
without upsetting the syntactic order, or even the
lexis. In this case it is understood that more
complex methods have to be used which at first
may look unusual but which nevertheless can
permit translators a strict control over the
reliability of their work: these procedures are
called oblique translation methods.'

Procedure 1: Borrowing
'To overcome a lacuna, usually a metalinguistic one
(e.g. a new technical process, an unknown concept),
borrowing is the simplest of all translation methods.'
It is used
(I) 'in order to create a stylistic effect' and
(II) 'in order to introduce the flavour of the source
language (SL) culture into a translation.'

It can be called a borrowing only if brand-new.

e.g. chapulling

Procedure 2: Calque
'A calque is a special kind of borrowing whereby a
language borrows an expression form of another, but
then translates literally each of its elements.'
1) Lexical calque: 'a calque which respects the syntactic
structure of the TL, whilst introducing a new mode of
expression' --e.g.: search engine -> arama motoru
2) Structural calque: 'introduces a new construction
into the language' --e.g.: krk haramiler
A calque 'can serve to fill a lacuna, without having to
use an actual borrowing.'

Procedure 3: Literal translation

'Literal, or word for word, translation is the direct
transfer of a SL text into a grammatically and
idiomatically appropriate TL text in which the
translators task is limited to observing the
adherence to the linguistic servitudes of the TL.'
A literal translation is a unique solution which is
reversible and complete in itself.
'It is most common when translating between
two languages of the same family (e.g. between
French and Italian), and even more so when they
also share the same culture.'

From direct to oblique translation

'If, after trying the first three procedures, translators
regard a literal translation unacceptable, they must
turn to the methods of oblique translation. By
unacceptable we mean that the message, when
translated literally
(I) gives another meaning, or
(II) has no meaning, or
(III) is structurally impossible, or
(IV) does not have a corresponding expression within
the metalinguistic experience of the TL, or
(V) has a corresponding expression, but not within the
same register.'

Procedure 4: Transposition
'The method called transposition involves
replacing one word class with another without
changing the meaning of the message.' (=
class shift in Catford)
e.g.: a medical student -> tp rencisi

Procedure 5: Modulation
'Modulation is a variation of the form of the message,
obtained by a change in the point of view. This change
can be justified when, although a literal, or even
transposed, translation results in a grammatically
correct utterance, it is considered unsuitable,
unidiomatic or awkward in the TL.'
active / passive, negative / positive etc.
It was not until the 18th century that the two words
came to have the same meaning.
18'inci yzyla kadar iki szck ayn anlam kazanm
deildi.

Procedure 6: Equivalence
'One and the same situation can be rendered by
two texts using completely different stylistic and
structural methods.' (e.g.: anomotopeic words,
exclammations.)
'[...] most equivalences are fixed, and belong to a
phraseological repertoire of idioms, clichs,
proverbs, nominal or adjectival phrases, etc.'
A rolling stone gathers no moss.
leyen demir pas tutmaz.

Procedure 7: Adaptation
'[...] it is used in those cases where the type of
situation being referred to by the SL message is
unknown in the TL culture. In such cases
translators have to create a new situation that
can be considered as being equivalent.
Adaptation can, therefore, be described as a
special kind of equivalence, a situational
equivalence.'
e.g.: early play translations in the Ottoman
Empire.

Eugene Nida
Towards a Science of Translating (Nida 1964)
Theory and Practice of Translation (Nida and Taber
1969)
As symbols differ between cultures, and hence
languages, translation cannot consist in providing exact
equivalents of words in the SL, but rather: 'Translating
consists in reproducing in the receptor language the
closest natural equivalent of the source-language
message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in
terms of style.' (Nida and Taber 1969:12)

Referential vs. connotative meaning

Referential meaning (denotation): What is refered
to. (e.g.: yl -> 365 gnlk dngsel zaman dilimi.)
Techniques of identifying the referential meaning:
(I) Hierarchical structuring (e.g.: to move) and (II)
componential analysis (e.g.: bekar vs. bachelor)
Connotative meaning: emotion evoked in the
receptor. (e.g.: tesekkur ederim, sag ol, eyvallah
allah raz olsun)
Pronunciation, style, subject matter and cultural
context also shape the connotative meaning.

Formal equivalence (Structural

correspondence)
A relationship which involves the purely formal
replacement of one word or phrase in the SL by
another in the TL. According to Nida, this is not
the same as literal translation. While literal
translations tend to preserve formal features
almost by default (i.e. with little or no regard for
context, meaning or what is implied by a given
utterance), a formal translation is almost always
contextually motivated:formal features are
preserved only if they carry contextual values
that become part of overall text meaning (e.g.
deliberate ambiguity in the ST).

Dynamic equivalence
If in the translators judgement a form of words that is
not sufficiently transparent in the TT is likely to pose a
threat to comprehensibility and therefore result in
unintended and unmotivated opaqueness, intervention
on the part of the translator becomes inevitable. In
such cases, the translator would need to resort to more
dynamic forms of equivalence.'
Through dynamic equivalence, we can thus cater for a
rich variety of contextual values and effects which
utterances carry within texts and which a literal
translation would simply compromise. These effects
would not be so much form-bound, as content-bound.
(Snell-Hornby: 2006: 43)

Formal or dynamic?
opting for this or that form of equivalence is
not an either/or choice. The more form-bound
a meaning is (e.g. a case of ambiguity through
word play), the more formal the equivalence
relation will have to be. Alternatively, the
more context-bound a meaning is (e.g. an
obscure reference to source culture), the more
dynamic the equivalence will have to be.
(Snell-Hornby: 2006: 44)

Translation process
The translator . . .
(1) Analyses the SL message into its simplest
and structurally clearest forms (or kernels) -(analysis)
(2) Transfers the message at this kernel level -(transfer)
(3) Restructures the message in the TL to the
level which is most appropriate for the
audience addressed --(restructuring).

 rather than a simple replacement exercise of actual SL

elements with their most literal TL counterparts, transfer
is a dynamic process of reconfiguration in the TL of sets of
SL semantic and structural components. (a word for a
phrase or a phrase for a word, or at higher levels, e.g. at
that of sentence or of discourse.)
'Restructuring ensures that the impact which the
translation is to have on its intended receptors is what the
ST producer has intended' (Nida 1969:495): any message
which does not communicate is simply useless.

John Catford
A Linguistic Theory of Translation (1965
The small linguistic changes that occur
between ST and TT are known as translation
shifts.
departures from formal correspondence in
the process of going from the SL to the TL
(Catford 1965:73)

Formal correspondence
A TL piece of language which plays the same role
in the TL system as an SL piece of language plays
in the SL system. (e.g.: window -> pencere)
any TL category (unit, class, structure, element of
structure, etc.) which can be said to occupy, as
nearly as possible, the same place in the
economy of the TL as the given SL category
occupies in the SL (Catford 1965:27).

Textual equivalence
any TL text or portion of text which is
observed [...] to be the equivalent of a given
SL text or portion of text (Catford 1965:27).
Also known as 'translation equivalence'.
Whereas a formal correspondence is nonspecific, a textual equivalence is a specific SLTL match

Translation shift
A shift is said to occur if, in a given TT, a translation
equivalent other than the formal correspondent occurs
for a specific SL element. (e.g.: Remember that ... ->
...n unutmayn.)

Translation shifts occur both at the lower level of

language, i.e. the lexicogrammar, and at the higher
thematic level of text.
Catford divides the shift in translation into two major
types: (I) level/rank shift and (II) category shift.

Level/rank shift
Level/rank shift refers to a source language
item at one linguistic level that has a target
language translation equivalent at a different
level. In other words, it is simply a shift from
grammar to lexis (or vice versa).
e.g.: rivayet gemi zaman -> allegedly /
reportedly etc.

 Category shift refers to departures from formal

correspondence in translation. The category shift is
divided again into four: (I) structure shifts, (II) class
shifts, (III) unit shifts, (IV) and intra-system shifts.

Structure shift is the changing of words sequence in a

sentence. (e.g.: SVO -> SOV)
Class shift occurs when the translation equivalent of a
source language item is a member of a different class
from the original item. (= transposition in Vinay and
Darbelnet) (e.g.: a medical student -> tp rencisi)

 Unit shift is the changes of rank; that is, departures from formal
correspondence in which the translation equivalent of a unit at one
rank in the SL is a unit at a different rank in the TL. (e.g.: A relative
clause defining the whole sentence in english may be rendered as a
separate sentence when translated to Turkish.)

Intra-system shift refers to the shifts for the cases where the SL and
the TL possess systems which approximately correspond formally as
to their constitution, but when translation involves selection of a
non-corresponding term in the TL system.
e.g.: Both turkish and english has a two-place/dual grammatical
number system, but plural 'scissors' in English is rendered as
singular in Turkish: makas.