oMaster Program:

Translation, culture and

digital media.
oModule: Translation
theories.
oProfessor: Mr.
BELBACHA
oStudent: Amina
BENBOUCHTA
 Memory refreshment..,

 How do you precisely define

translation studies?
Chapter two: Translation theory before the
twentieth century.
Introduction.
‘Word-for - word’ or ‘sense - for –
sense’.
Early Chinese and Arabic discourse of
translation.
Humanism and the protestant
reformation.
Fidelity, spirit and truth.
Early attempts at systematic
translation theory: Dryden, Dolet,
Tyler and Yan Fu.
Schleiermacher and the valorization of
the foreign.
Towards contemporary translation
theory.
 A focal point in this chapter:

• ‘word- for- word’ transaltion as considered by Newmark ( a British

translation theorist) the prelinguistic period of translation.

or,

• ‘ sense - for – sense’ translation

 History of the debate:
(cicero and St. Jerome poles in translation studies)

 The distinction between word – for – word and sense – for – sense
translation goes back to the classical authors ; Marcus Tullius cicero
(Roman statesman and philosopher .106BCE_ 43 BCE) and st. Jerome
(Christian scholar an priest. Best know for translating the bible. 347 _
420 CE).
 These two prominent figures prioritized the overall message and clarity
in the target language over strict literalism.
 Historical disparagement of ‘word –for- word’
translation:
 For cicero, the orator is the one who produces the same message. Yet, the
interpreter is a literal translator.
 The roman poet Horace (65BCE – 8BCE) underlines the goal of producing an
aesthetically pleasant and creative poetic text in the target language.
 St. Jerome rejected the ‘word- for – word’ (literal) in favor of free translation. As,
the literal translation cloaks the sense of the original text.
=> Jerome decided to turn the bible into its original Hebrew. So, he noted points
where the two versions differ.
The translation of religious texts:

The Chinese Translation of the

Buddhist Sutras:
from Sanskrit (classical language of India) to Chinese
Eva Hung and her husband David Pollard are prominent figures who
described the history of the Chinese translation of Buddhist Sutras:
 The first Phase (C148 – 265): ‘Word –for- word’ translation. There was a
strong adherence to the SL syntax believing that sacred should not be
tampered with. So, this resulted in texts which was difficult for a Chinese
reader to understand, especially those without a theological grounding.
 The second phase (C265 – 589) : This period was marked by a swing
towards free translation (Yiyi: called by contemporary Chinese scholars).
Kumarajiva , a Buddist scholar, as pioneer of this approach emphasized a
shift towards prioritizing the meaning of the text to resonate with the
Chinese audience.
 The third phase: (C589- 1100): Xuan Zang , a Buddhist Monk and
translator, set down rules to understand the Sanskrit text before
translating it in order not to lose meaning and to provide accurate
meaning which is comprehensible by the Chinese audience.
=> Translating as faithfully as possible.
=> Monks should gain more linguistic and theological expertise.
Recap:
The use of the term Yiyi in the aforementioned phases ( second phase )
aligns with the styles of Cicero and St. Jerome moving towards translating
meaning considering aesthetic and stylistic factors.
 Translating from foreign languages
into Chinese:
Five losses:
1) Change of the syntax ( word order ) in the
original text.
2) As the Chinese people are fond of elegant
style, the plain style of the sutras will
change towards a more aesthetic style
that fits the feelings.
3) Omission of repetitive exclamations makes
sutras less detailed.
4) Reduction of the paratextual
commentaries that accompany the sutras
in the ST.
5) Restructuring the sentences or making
reductions in order to ensure more logical
and linear discourse.
 Dao’an’s ( a Chinese Buddhist monk 314 – 385 CE) contribution
to the translation studies:
He highlights the importance of both contrastive
linguistics features (between ST and TT) and the
social and historical context (audience, ST status) that
affect translation

• Three factors in order not to deviate from the text :

1. The direction of the message to a new audience.

2. The sanctity of the ST words.

3. Recognizing the special status of the STs.

The “Literal pole” and ‘free pole’ in the
Arab world translations:
 The Abbassid period (750 – 1250)
was greatly marked by high progress
in translation works through
translating scientific, philosophical
and medical works into Arabic.
 The wealth of texts increased the
demand for translators , which in turn
led to their greater
professionalization and improved
knowledge of Greek.
 Characteristics of translation in
the Abbassid era:
• The Arabs developed strategies of translation which help in
adapting the Greek texts for the Islamic culture.
• Thanks to the Arab translators’ professionalization, there was an
increased use of Arabic neologisms (‫ )جغرافيا – فلسفة‬instead of
borrowing or transliteration. Salama Car’s view
 Historical progression in
translation styles:
 The first attempts of translating Greek works into Arabic were
associated with the Christian philosophers and translators
Yuhanna Ibn lbariq and Ibn Na'ima al-Himsi . Those attempts
were mainly literal trying to find the equivalent of each Greek
word in Arabic. Yet, when not finding any Arabic equivalent,
they resulted in borrowing Greek words into the Arabic
language.
 The second attempt ( European classical influence )was
associated with Ibn Ishaq and Al-Jawahri, consisted of
translating sense-for-sense , creating fluent target texts
focusing on conveying the meaning.
Gutas: a prominent scholar known for his extensive works on the
transmission of Greek philosophy and science into the Islamic world,
particulary during the Abbassid era.
=> Rejects the idea which states that changes in translation styles is
explained by historical progression. Instead, he stresses the
influence of social, political and ideological factors on translation
pactices. For example; the increased availability of Greek texts during
the Abbassid era led to higher demand for translators, which in turn
led to more professionalized translation and better understanding of
Greek knowledge.
=> Divergence in styles during the Abbassid era for Gutas is not an
evolution, but it resulted from translating different complexes
(medical, Maths, philosophical contents..)
Recap:
o As for the Chinese translation works, the Arab translation works were
also influenced by the classical western European discourse on
translation .That is to say, favoring free translation over literal
translation. Yet, the Arab translators developed their translation
strategies to bring about professionalization in styles and contents.
Humanism and the protestant
reformation:
(issues of literal and free translation)
The Humanist movement:
Before the movement:
 Translation of religious and philosophical texts was tightly controlled for
centuries with Latin as a dominant language of religion.
During the movement:
 Jerome’s Latin vulgate was one such bible translation, but was officially
accepted by the catholic church in 1546.
 The European humanist movement of the 14 and 15 century challenged
the dominance of Latin, as a language controlled by the church in Rome,
which had stranglehold over knowledge and religion. The movement
sought to reconnect with the original classical Latin and Greek.
The protestant reformation:
In the sixteenth century, the protestant reformation began as a religious
and cultural movement that aimed at reforming the catholic church. First,
they started by translating the bible into vernacular languages. So, any book
that was interpreted against the church’s wills was banned.
 Risk for translators:
The church didn’t allow the publication of the bible in vernacular
language for fear of creating or establishing new doctrines.
 William Tyndale: an English theologian, who translated the bible
into English. His work was banned and he was executed for heresy
in 1536.
 Étienne Dolet: executed for allegedly adding ‘ rien du tout’ in his
translation of Plato, which was interpreted as blasphemy and
denial of immortality.
 The 16th century practices in translation:
The 16th century knew a revolution in bible translation practices in Europe.
And, thanks to the new technology of the printing press, the bible translation
dominated book production.
The impact of the humanist Erasmus and the protestant Martin Luther
on translation:
 Erasmus (1466 -1536) : a Dutch philosopher, theologian and a
leading figure in Christian humanism. He produced a new edition of
the Greek Latin new testament (1516), which was widely used by
both Tyndale and Martin Luther.
 Luther ( 1483- 15460): a German theologian, priest and key figure
in protestant reformation. Luther prioritized the TL and the Target
audience understanding. He encouraged translators to listen to how
ordinary people spoke and translate in a way that felt natural to
them. Thus , making the bible accessible to a wider audience.
 Fidelity, spirit and truth in translation
practices over centuries:
• fidelity: faithfulness to the original.
• Truth: accuracy in content.
• Spirit: The creative energy.
Þ These terms have been central in translation theory:
Flora Amos ( 1881-1923) a notable American scholar,
particularly recognized for her contributions to translation
studies. She noted that early translators often lacked a
systematic approach, resulting in translation practices which
were inconsistent and fragmented, because of their slowness
in clearly defining their goals. They even differed in the
meaning they gave to terms such as ‘faithfulness’, ‘accuracy’
and even translation.
Louis Kelly detailed the history of western translation theory. He views that terms
such as fidelity, spirit and truth were shaped by religious or philosophical views
over time.
 fidelity: word-for-word translation. It was till the end of the 17th century that
the term fidelity became faithfulness to the meaning rather than to the
wording of the text.
 Spirit: - for kelly it denotes creative energy or inspiration.
- for St. Augustine (354 – 430CA) it was used to mean holy spirit of God.
later, it lost its religious sense and was used to mean the creative energy
of text or language.
 Truth - for St. Augustine Spirit and Truth were intertwined (having the sense of
content)
- for St. Jerome Truth meant the authentic Hebrew biblical text to
which he returned in his Latin vulgate translation.
- Kelly considers that it was until the 12th century that Truth became
fully equated with content.
=> In translating sacred texts, there was an interconnection of fidelity, spirit and
truth.
 Continuity and theoretical foundations:
Rener’s perspective (1989) argues for continuity in western
translation theory. This continuity is linked to classical thinkers like
Cicero and Quintilian, who differentiated between grammar (rules and
correctness) and rhetoric (persuasive use of language). Grammar
emphasized clarity, while rhetoric values elegance.
 Early attempts at systematic translation theory:
Dryden, Dolet, Tytler and Yan Fu
The 17th century, a revolution in western translation:
Prominent figures:
Abraham Cowley: proposed ‘imitation’ as a method of translation, allowing
freedom from the original text to create something new. His approach was to
counter the potential loss of beauty in translation by inventing new expressions.
John Dryden classified translation into three categories:
 Metaphrase: word-for-word translation, aligning closely with literal
translation.
 Paraphrase: sense- for-sense translation giving the translator latitude to
keep the author’s intentions without strict adherence to each word.
 Imitation: a very free translation style where the translator interprets the
“spirit” rather than the exact words, aligning with Cowley’s approach.
=> Dryden criticized purely ‘metaphrase’ and ‘imitation’ approaches,
preferring paraphrase as a balanced middle ground that retained the
author’s voice without overly rigid adherence to the original text.
• Alexander Fraser Tytler introduced three foundational “laws”,
focusing on content and style fidelity:
Þ The translator should produce a complete transfer of ideas from the original
text.
Þ The translation should match the style of the original.
Þ The translation should be read natural, as if originally written in the target
language.
( Balance between free and literal translation)
• Yan Fu’s principles:
Þ Fidelity: ensuring accuracy in meaning.
Þ Fluency: clarity and comprehensibility.
Þ elegance: aesthetic quality.
(Prioritizing elegance and clarity in translation)
 Recap:
The theory of translation in this era knew progression from literal
translation towards approaches that consider meaning, style, and
readability important foundational aspects of modern translation.
 Schleiermacher and the valorisation of the
foreign:
(the 19th century)

Friedrich Schleiermacher, a key figure in the romantic movement in

Germany. Schleiermacher is known for his approach to translation, which
emphasized the importance of preserving the “ foreignness” of the source text in
the target language.
Types of translators:
• The Dolmetscher: who translate practical, commercial texts.
• The Ubersetzer: who translates scholarly and artistic texts
Þ Schleiermacher believes that this second type had a more creative role,
helping to enrich the target language by retaining aspects of the original.
Strategies of translation:
Schleiermacher identifies two main approaches for the true translator:
Þ Move the reader towards the writer: This approach encourages readers to
engage with foreign culture and context.
Þ Move the writer towards the reader: This makes the text feel more
familiar to the target audience.
N.B:

Þ Schleiermacher favours moving the reader towards the writer, using

an ‘alienating’ or ‘foreignizing’ method. He argued that this approach
respects the foreign culture and allows readers to experience the
original context more authentically.

Þ Schleiermacher’s ideas on ‘foreignization’ and ‘domestication’ are

still central to modern translation theory.
 Towards contemporary translation theory:
Jeremy Munday outlines in this chapter the transition from a traditional to
a more modern perspectives on translation theory. He introduces the
debate concerning moving from literal to free translation. The next
chapters will shed the light on debatable approaches and theories in the
20th century translation practices.
Reflections, comments, ideas….
Thank you 