Translation definitions.

From Jeremy Munday “Introducing Translation Studies”:

The main aim of this book is to introduce the reader to major concepts and models of translation studies. Because of the rapid growth in the area, particularly over the last decade, difficult decisions have had to be taken regarding the selection of material. We have decided, for reasons of space and consistency of approach, to focus on written translation rather than oral translation (the latter is commonly known as interpreting or interpretation), although the overlaps make a clear distinction impossible (cf. Gile 2004).

The term translation itself has several meanings: it can refer to the general subject field, the product (the text that has been translated) or the process (the act of producing the translation, otherwise known as translating). The process of translation between two different written languages involves the translator changing an original written text (the source text or ST) in the original verbal language (the source language or SL) into a written text (the target text or TT) in a different verbal language (the target language or TL). This type corresponds to ‘interlingual translation' and is one of the three categories of translation described by the Russo-American structuralist Roman Jakobson in his seminal paper ‘On linguistic aspects of translation' (Jakobson 1959/2004: 139). Jakobson's categories are as follows:

(1) intralingual translation, or ‘rewording': ‘an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language';

(2) interlingual translation, or ‘translation proper': ‘an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language';

(3) intersemiotic translation, or ‘transmutation': ‘an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of non-verbal sign systems'.

Intralingual translation would occur, for example, when we rephrase an expression or when we summarize or otherwise rewrite a text in the same language. Intersemiotic translation would occur if a written text were translated, for example, into music, film or painting. It is interlingual translation, between two different verbal languages, which is the traditional, although by no means exclusive, focus of translation studies. As we shall see as the book progresses, notably in Chapters 8 to 10, the very notion of ‘translation proper' and of the stability of source and target has now been challenged and the question of what we mean by ‘translation', and how it differs from ‘adaptation', ‘version', etc., is a real one. Thus, whereas Sandra Halverson (1999) claims that translation can be considered as a prototype classification (i.e. that there are basic core features that we associate with a prototypical translation, and other translational forms which lie on the periphery), Anthony Pym (2004a: 52) sees clear ‘discontinuities' in certain new modes, such as translation-localization. Much of the ‘theory' is also from a western perspective; in contrast, Maria Tymoczko (2005, 2006) discusses the very different words and metaphors for ‘trans­lation' in other cultures, indicative of a conceptual orientation and where the goal of close lexical fidelity to an original may not therefore be shared, certainly in the practice of transla­tion of sacred and literary texts. For instance, in India there is ‘rupantar' (= ‘change of form') and ‘anuvad' (= ‘speaking after', ‘following'), in the Arab world ‘tarjama' (= ‘biography') and in China ‘fan yi' (= ‘turning over') (see also, Ramakrishna 2000, Trivedi 2006).

From Hatim & Munday “Translation: An Advanced Resource Book”:

Translation is a phenomenon that has a huge effect on everyday life. This can range from the translation of a key international treaty to the following multilingual poster that welcomes customers to a small restaurant near to the home of one of the authors:

Example A1.1

 

Benvenuti! Welcome! Hi!

 

How can we then go about defining the phenomenon of ‘translation’ and what the study of it entails? If we look at a general dictionary, we find the following definition of the term translation:

Example A1.2

translation n. 1 the act or an instance of translating. 2 a written or spoken expression of the meaning of a word, speech, book, etc. in another language.

(The Concise Oxford English Dictionary)

The first of these two senses relates to translation as a process, the second to the product. This immediately means that the term translation encompasses very distinct perspectives. The first sense focuses on the role of the translator in taking the original or source text (ST) and turning it into a text in another language (the target text, TT). The second sense centres on the concrete translation product produced by the translator. This distinction is drawn out by the definition in the specialist Dictionary of Translation Studies (Shuttleworth and Cowie 1997:181):

 

Example A1.3

 

Translation An incredibly broad notion which can be understood in many different ways. For example, one may talk of translation as a process or a product, and identify such sub-types as literary translation, technical translation, subtitling and machine translation; moreover, while more typically it just refers to the transfer of written texts, the term sometimes also includes interpreting.

 

This definition introduces further variables, first the ‘sub-types’, which include not only typically written products such as literary and technical translations, but also translation forms that have been created in recent decades, such as audiovisual translation, a written product which is read in conjunction with an image on screen (cinema, television, DVD or computer game). Moreover, the reference to machine translation reveals that translation is now no longer the preserve of human trans- lators but, in a professional context, increasingly a process and product that marries computing power and the computerized analysis of language to the human’s ability to analyse sense and determine appropriate forms in the other language.

 

From P. Newmark:

I define culture as the way of life and its manifestations that are peculiar to a community that uses a particular language as its means of expression. More specifically, I distinguish 'cultural' from 'universal' and 'personal' language. 'Die','live', 'star', 'swim' and even almost virtually ubiquitous artefacts like 'mirror' and'table' are universals - usually there is no translation problem there. 'Monsoon','steppe', 'dacha', 'tagliatelle' are cultural words - there will be a translation problem unless there is cultural overlap between the source and the target language (and its readership). Universal words such as 'breakfast', 'embrace', 'pile' often cover the universal function, but not the cultural description of the referent. And if I express myself in a personal way - 'you're weaving (creating conversation) as usual', 'his "underlife" (personal qualities and private life) is evident in that poem','he's a monologger' (never finishes the sentence) - I use personal, not immediately social, language, what is often called idiolect, and there is normally a translation problem.

All these are broad and fuzzy distinctions. You can have several cultures (and sub-cultures) within one language: Jause ('Austrian' tea), Jugendweihe (GDR -'coming out' ceremony for twelve-year-olds), Beamier (Austria, Switzerland, FRG - but not GDR) are all cultural words which may need translation within German. However dialect words are not cultural words if they designate universals (e.g.,'loch', 'moors'), any more than the notorious pain, vin, Gemutlichkeit, 'privacy', insouciance, which are admittedly overladen with cultural connotations. And, when a speech community focuses its attention on a particular topic (this is usually called'cultural focus'), it spawns a plethora of words to designate its special language or terminology - the English on sport, notably the crazy cricket words ('a maiden over', 'silly mid-on', 'howzzat'), the French on wines and cheeses, the Germans on sausages, Spaniards on bull-fighting, Arabs on camels, Eskimos, notoriously, on snow, English and French on sex in mutual recrimination; many cultures have their words for cheap liquor for the poor and desperate: 'vodka', 'grappa','slivovitz', 'sake', 'Schnaps' and, in the past (because too dear now), 'gin'. Frequently where there is cultural focus, there is a translation problem due to the cultural 'gap' or 'distance' between the source and target languages.

Note that operationally I do not regard language as a component or feature of culture. If it were so, translation would be impossible. Language does however contain all kinds of cultural deposits, in the grammar (genders of inanimate nouns), forms of address (like Sie, usted) as well as the lexis ('the sun sets') which are not taken account of in universals either in consciousness or translation. Further, the more specific a language becomes for natural phenomena (e.g., flora and fauna) the more it becomes embedded in cultural features, and therefore creates translation problems. Which is worrying, since it is notorious that the translation of the most general words (particularly of morals and feelings, as Tytler noted in 1790) - love, temperance, temper, right, wrong - is usually harder than that of specific words.

Most 'cultural' words are easy to detect, since they are associated with aparticular language and cannot be literally translated, but many cultural customs are described in ordinary language ('topping out a building', 'time, gentlemen, please', 'mud in your eye'), where literal translation would distort the meaning and a translation may include an appropriate descriptive-functional equivalent. Cultural objects may be referred to by a relatively culture-free generic term or classifier (e.g., 'tea') plus the various additions in different cultures, and you have to account for these additions ('rum', 'lemon', 'milk', 'biscuits', 'cake', other courses, various times of day) which may appear in the course of the SL text.

 

From Бархударов «Язык и перевод»:

Слово «перевод» имеет несколько различных значений. Так, в «Толковом словаре русского языка» под редакцией Д. Н. Ушакова указывается на наличие у этого слова пяти значений,¹ большинство которых, понятно, не имеет отношения к интересующей нас проблеме (напр., 'перевод заведующего на другую должность', 'почтовый перевод' и др.). Но даже когда слово «перевод» употребляется в смысле 'перевод с одного языка на другой', оно и в этом случае имеет два разных значения:

1) «Перевод как результат определенного процесса», то есть обозначение самого переведенного текста (напр., в предложениях: «Это — очень хороший перевод романа Диккенса», «Недавно вышел в свет новый перевод поэмы Байрона «Паломничество Чайльд-Гарольда» на русский язык», «Он читал этого автора в переводе» и т. п.

2) «Перевод как сам процесс», то есть как действие от глагола переводить, в результате которого появляется текст перевода в первом значении. Преимущественно в этом втором значении термин «перевод» будет употребляться на ми в дальнейшем.

 

Переводом называется процесс преобразования речевого произведения на одном языке в речевое произведение на другом языке при сохранении неизменного плана содержания, то есть значения.

При этом с самого начала необходимо сделать две крайне существенные оговорки;

1) Термин «план содержания» или «значение» следует понимать максимально широко, имея в виду все виды отношений, в которых находится знаковая (в данном случае, языковая) единица. Их описание составит предмет следующей главы; сейчас достаточно отметить, что неправомерно сводить понятие «значения» только к тому, что часто называют «предметно-логическим» или «денотативным» значением (в нашей работе эти значения носят название «референциальных»). Таким образом, правильное понимание сущности процесса перевода требует, прежде всего, детальной разработки теории языковых значений или семасиологии.

2) О «сохранении неизменного плана содержания» можно говорить только в относительном, но не в абсолютном смысле. При межъязыковом преобразовании (как и при всяком другом виде преобразований) неизбежны потери,то есть имеет место неполная передача значений, выражаемых текстом подлинника. Стало быть, текст перевода никогда не может быть полным и абсолютным эквивалентом текста подлинника; задача переводчика заключается в том, чтобы сделать эту эквивалентность как можно более полной, то есть добиваться сведения потерь до минимума, но требовать «стопроцентного» совпадения значений, выражаемых в тексте подлинника и тексте перевода, было бы абсолютно нереальным. Это значит также, что одной из задач теории перевода является установление того, что можно назвать порядком очередности передачи значений: учитывая, что существуют различные типы значений, необходимо установить, какие из них пользуются преимуществом при передаче в процессе перевода, а какими можно «жертвовать» с тем, чтобы семантические потери при переводе были минимальными. Эта проблема будет нами детально рассмотрев в дальнейшем изложении.

 

From Komissarov:

Перевод - это сложное многогранное явление, отдельные аспекты которого могут быть предметом исследования разных наук. В рамках переводоведения изучаются психологические, литературоведческие, этнографические и другие стороны пере­водческой деятельности, а также история переводческой дея­тельности в той или иной стране или странах. В зависимости от предмета исследования можно выделить психологическое переводоведение (психологию перевода), литературное перево­доведение (теорию художественного или литературного перево­да), этнографическое переводоведение, историческое переводове­дение и т.д. Ведущее место в современном переводоведении принадлежит лингвистическому переводоведению (лингвистике перевода), изучающему перевод как лингвистическое явление. Отдельные виды переводоведения дополняют друг друга, стре­мясь к всестороннему описанию переводческой деятельности.

From Korunets:

 

Translation as a term and notion is of polysemantic nature, its common and most general meaning being mostly associated with the action or process of rendering/expressing the meaning/content of a source language word, word-group, sentence or passage (larger text) in the target language or with the result of the process/action of rendering. In other words with the work performed by the translator (cf. this is my translation). «Translation» is also used to denote the subject taught or studied, the examination in the subject (cf. we have translation in the time-table today; I have to pass translation tomorrow). «Translation» may refer to the title of the manual/ theoretical work on the subject (cf. I bought Translation by Ivanenko). Besides, the Romanization of proper nouns, geographical names, different internationalisms, etc., when Latin letters are used to convey the Ukrainian nouns, verbs, adverbs is «translation» too: Київ Kyiv, Бровари Brovary, Львів Lviv, Біла Церква Bila Tserkva, Полтава Poltava, Згурівка Zghurivka, Медвин Medvyn, algebra алгебра, geographerreorpadp, computer комп'ютер, opera опера, telephone (v) телефонувати, mechanically механічно, ignore ігнорувати, historically історично. «Translated» in this way, i.e., transliterated with the help of Cyrillic letters are many English and other foreign names and different terms. Cf.: Archibald Cronin Арчібальд Кронін, Robert Frosf Роберт Фрост, Ottawa Оттава, Mc/сНік, Susar/Сюзан, Helmut /<оп/Гельмут Коль, shilling шилінґ, pizza піцца, therapeutic терапевтичний, etc.