Overview
This chapter explains the main concepts related to translation. It provides theoretical definitions of translation. It also explains the concept of the ‘translation unit’, and how scholars of translation disagree on identifying the unit of translation. Some scholars consider a word to be the unit of translation; others believe that a unit of translation may be a sentence, piece of text, or culture. Moreover, the chapter sheds light on the thorny notion of meaning in translation studies.
In particular, this chapter covers the following topics:
- A.Definition of translation
- B.Translation unit
- C.Meaning in translation
1.1 Definitions of Translation
Translation is a controversial concept that is hotly debated. There are many definitions of translation that revolve around meaning, and the different notions of equivalence. Halliday et al. (1965) describe translation as the establishment of textual equivalents, rather than lexical or grammatical equivalents. Thus, as stated by Halliday et al. (1965), translation is not a mere word-for-word rendition but, rather, translation is seen as a whole text-to-text transplanting. Catford (1965, p. 20), similar to Halliday, defines translation as ‘the replacement of textual material in one language, i.e. the source language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language, i.e. target language (TL).’ House (2001) perceives translation as a reproduction of a text in an SL in an equivalent text in a TL. Thus, Halliday et al. (1965) see translation in terms of textual equivalence, and not word-for-word equivalence. Widdowson (1978) sees translation from a different perspective; he views translation from a communicative perspective. Widdowson states that translation should neither operate at the word level, the sentence level, the lexical level, or the grammatical level; translation should be only at the communicative level. As for Hatim and Munday (2004), they state that there are two distinctive senses of translation: translation as a process, and translation as a product. They view translation, or to use their words, the ambit of translation as: (1) the process of transferring a ST into a TT in a specific socio-cultural context; (2) a product which is the result of the previous step; and (3) the cognitive, linguistic, visual, cultural and ideological phenomena that are a principal component of (1) and (2). This definition seems have greater care for the socio-cultural aspects of translation.
Other scholars and researchers (e.g. Venuti, 2004; Ahmed, 2006) see translation as a process that not only implies conveying meaning in a TL, but that should retain the same style and tone of a ST: the translated text should not appear to be a translation but, rather, should appear to be an original text, wherein no translator is visible. This definition focuses on the equivalence level between a ST and a TT; it goes beyond lexical equivalence to include style and tone, which are difficult to achieve. However, another perspective sees translation as reproducing a text in one language in another TL to make it accessible to a larger audience (Ordudari, 2007). Ordudari’s definition is more concerned with the aim of translation; that is, to reach a greater audience, which applies to many types of texts. Levý (1967) sees translation as a process of decision making, whereby the components of this decision are:
- 1.The situation: sometimes the SL expresses one lexical item using a certain item where the TL has two equivalents for the same word. For example, a translator has to make a decision when translating the English word ‘eclipse’ because it has two equivalents in Arabic (i.e. one is related to the moon and the other related to the sun).
- 2.Instruction I: This implies defining the class of possible alternatives.
- 3.Instruction II: This denotes making a selection from the available class alternatives. This selection is context-based. For example, to translate the word ‘eclipse’ into Arabic, a translator should refer to the context to understand whether it is a ‘lunar eclipse’ (relating to the moon), or a ‘solar eclipse’ (relating to the sun).
Levy’s (1976) view of translation is related to the process of the translation, which sounds practical. Levy’s perspective of translation sounds comprehensive, as it encompasses the notion of ‘equivalence’ without disregarding the role of a translator in selecting the most appropriate equivalent. Another perspective of translation is that of Reiss (2004), who sees translation as a process of producing a text in the TT that is functionally equivalent to the ST. However, she goes on to say that, during the communication process, the message will be altered, perhaps by a translator’s views, or experience and knowledge. These changes can result in two types of message changes:
- 1.Unintentional changes: Changes may result from the differences between the structure of a language, or from the degree of the translator’s competence.
- 2.Intentional changes: These changes can affect the functionality of the ST. This kind of change occurs if the aim of the ST is rendered differently in the TT.
Reiss’s view of translation equivalence is in terms of functional equivalence. Overall, most of the aforementioned views of translation are centred on certain basic notions—lexical equivalence and meaning in translation; and the functional equivalence in translation—that reflect the different approaches and theories of translation.
Exercise
‘Translation’ has been given various definitions by a variety of scholars. Elaborate on this, explaining the implications behind each of these definitions.
1.2 Translation Unit
A translation unit, as defined by Manfredi (2014), is the linguistic level employed by a translator during their act of translation. Theorists hold a variety of positions in regard to the translation unit, depending on what they consider a translation unit to be. For example, Vinay and Darbelnet proposed the terms ‘lexicological unit’ or ‘unit of thought’ as a translation unit. They rejected the notion that a word can be a unit of translation (Manfredi, 2014). Newmark (1988, pp. 66–67), on the other hand, regards a ‘sentence’ as the best unit of translation. He justifies his view by stating that a sentence is a unit of thought and a means presenting objects. He adds, ‘All lengths of language can, at different moments and also simultaneously, be used as units of translation in the course of the translation activity’ (Newmark, 1988, pp. 66–67). However, Newmark mentions that in some texts such as expressive texts, a ‘word’ should be deemed as the unit of translation as it can better convey the finest nuances. Bassnett (2005), however, states that a text should be the unit of translation, especially in relation to literary prose texts. Strangely, Snell-Hornby considers the notion of culture as the unit of translation (Hatim and Munday 2004). Manfredi (2014), in line with Halliday and Matthiessen (2014), argues that a clause is the most proper unit of translation. However, Manfredi states that in written translations, especially literary ones, a sentence should be considered as the unit of translation. Sentence, in this context, refers to a graphological unit that begins with a capital letter and ends with a full stop. ‘Word, in its context, can be the proper unit of translations, especially authoritative and sacred texts such as the Holy Quran because nuances between words give different meanings.’ In addition, faithfulness to the ST requires carrying out the translation process at the word level, rather than at sentence level. In sum, different scholars revealed different understandings and perspectives of the unit of translation. Whatever the case may be, translating these units of translations (whether word, sentence, clause, or culture) poses many problems, which will be discussed in due course. However, first, we should discuss meaning in translation, as translation is a process of conveying meaning.
Exercise
One important notion in translation theory is the ‘unit of translation’. Why do you think that this notion is important? How does it affect the theory and practice of translation?
1.3 Meaning in Translation
Halliday (1992) states that a main feature of translation is that it is a process of meaning-making and that without such creation of meaning there is no translation. He also states that this creation of meaning is a guided activity. Halliday further comments that, for a language theory to be related to translation, it should be concerned with functional semantics. He explicates his notion of function by stating that it does not refer to the vague sense of use; rather, it refers to ‘metafunction’. Metafunction, as defined by Halliday, is ‘function as the fundamental organizing concept around which all human language has evolved’ (Halliday, 1992, p. 15). He has made it clear that his notion of functional semantics does not imply discarding the formal patterns (e.g. phonological or syntactic patterns), but that these formal patterns should keep the semantic relations in place. He states that complete semantic equivalences between any two languages cannot be absolute. They can be contingent on the contextual meaning of an item. He makes a clear deduction of the meaning of ‘equivalence of meaning’ as being ‘equivalence of function in context’ (Halliday, 1992, p. 16). Halliday recommends that, in a translation process, target contextual equivalents should be found. A translator, then, should sel...