I. WHAT IS THE THEORY OF TRANSLATION?

It is assumed that before the 1970s the term ‘translation’ used to be thought of
particularly as a discipline in the process of foreign language learning; it was rarely
studied for its own sake. What is generally understood as translation involves the
rendering of a source language text into the target text, ensuring that (1) the surface
meaning of the two will be approximately similar and (2) the structures of the
source language will be preserved as closely as possible but not so closely that the
target language structure will be seriously distorted. The instructor can then hope
to measure the students’ linguistic competence by means of the target language
products. But there the matter stops (Susan Bassnett, 2002). In the light of this
direction, the theory of translation involves normative approaches, putting a strong
emphasis on prescribing to translators how to and how not to translate.

Together with the term ‘translation theory’ or ‘theory of translation’, since the mid-
1970s the name ‘Translation Studies’ has been adopted to indicate that the study of
translation is not just a minor branch of comparative literary study, nor yet a
specific area of linguistics, but a vastly complex field with many far-reaching
fields: stylistics, literary history, linguistics, semiotics, aesthetics, and practical
applications in translation. Translation Studies, indeed a discipline in its own right,
aims to produce a comprehensive theory which can be used as a guideline for the
production of translations, and during the actual translation process the problems
encountered by those working in the field will enrich their practical experience for
theoretical discussions, and then increased theoretical perceptiveness will be put to
use in the translation of texts.

Practically, whether the study of translation is termed as ‘Translation Theory’ or

‘Translation Studies’ it culminates with the theory on proper principles of
translation. This theory, based on a solid foundation on understanding of how
languages work, translation theory recognizes that different languages encode
meaning in differing forms, yet guides translators to find appropriate ways of
preserving meaning, while using the most appropriate forms of each language.
Translation theory includes principles for translating figurative language, dealing
with lexical mismatches, rhetorical questions, inclusion of cohesion markers, and
many other topics crucial to good translation.

Basically there are two competing theories of translation. In one, the predominant
purpose is to express as exactly as possible the full force and meaning of every
word and phrase in the original, and in the other the predominant purpose is to
produce a result that does not read like a translation at all, but rather moves in its
new dress with the same ease as in its native rendering. In the hands of a good
translator neither of these two approaches can ever be entirely ignored.

II. DEFINITIONS OF TRANSLATION

Since antiquity (3000BC-Newmark 1986), translation has become popular in

language learning and daily life. So far, there have been many definitions of
translation, and the following are some of them:

1. Translation, by dictionary definition, consists of changing from one state or

form to another, to turn into one’s own or another’s language. (The Merriam-
Webster Dictionary, 1974). Translation is basically a change of form. When we
speak of the form of a language, we are referring to the actual words, phrases,
sentences, paragraphs, etc. The forms are referred to as the surface structure of a
language. It is the structural part of language which is actually seen in print or
heard in speech. In translation the form of the source language is replaced by the
form of the receptor/target language. But how is this change accomplished? What
determines the choices of form in the translation?

2. Translation is the expression in another language (target language) of what has

been expressed in one language (source language), preserving semantic and
stylistic equivalencies.

3. Translation is the replacement of a representation of a text in one language by a

representation of an equivalent text in a second language.

4. Translation is rendering a written text into another language in a way that the
author intended the text.
5. Translators are concerned with written texts. They render written texts from one
language into another language. Translators are required to translate texts which
arrange from simple items including birth certificates or driving licenses to more
complex written materials such as articles in journals of various kinds, business
contracts and legal documents.”

6. Translating may be defined as the process of transforming signs or

representations into other signs or representations. If the originals have some
significance, we generally require that their images also have the same
significance, or, more realistically, as nearly the same significance as we can get.
Keeping significance invariant is the central problem in translating between natural
languages.

7. Translation may be defined as follows: the replacement of textual material in

one language (SI.) by equivalent material in another language (TL).

8. One of the most important factors determining the purpose of a translation is the
addressee, who is the intended receiver or audience of the target text with their
culture-specific world-knowledge, their expectations and their communicative
needs. Every translation is directed at an intended audience, since to translate
means “to produce a text in a target setting for a target purpose and target
addressees in target circumstances".

9. Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural

equivalent of the source-language message.

10. Translation leads from a source-language text to a target-language text which is

as close an equivalent as possible and presupposes an understanding of the content
and style of the original.

11. When the translation is an end in itself, in the sense of simply seeking to extend
an originally monolingual communicative process to include receivers in another
language, then it must be conceived as an integral communicative performance,
which without any extratextual additions (notes, explanations etc.) provides an
insight into the cognitive meaning, linguistic form and communicative function of
the SL text.

12. The linguistic approaches basically saw translating as a code-switching

operation. With the more pragmatic reorientation at the beginning of the 1970s, the
focus shifted from the word or phrase to the text as a unit of translation, but the
fundamental linguistic trend was not broken. Equivalence as a basic concept or
even constituent of translation was never really questioned.

13. The ideal translation would be one "in which the aim in the TL [target
language] is equivalence as regards the conceptual content, linguistic form and
communicative function of a SL [source-language] text". The requirement of
equivalence thus has the following form: quality (or qualities) X in the SL text
must be preserved. This means that the source-language content, form, style,
function, etc. must be preserved, or at least that the translation must seek to
preserve them as far as possible.

Translation has its own excitement, its own interest. A satisfactory translation is
always possible, but a good translator is never satisfied with it. It can usually be
improved. There is no such thing as a perfect, ideal or 'correct' translation. A
translator is always trying to extend his knowledge and improve his means of
expression; he is always pursuing facts and words. He works on four levels:
translation is first a science, which entails the knowledge and verification of the
facts and the language that describes them - here, what is wrong, mistakes of truth,
can be identified; secondly, it is a skill, which calls for appropriate language and
acceptable usage; thirdly, an art, which distinguishes good from undistinguished
writing and is the creative, the intuitive, sometimes the inspired, level of the
translation; lastly, a matter of taste, where argument ceases, preferences are
expressed, and the variety of meritorious translations is the reflection of individual
differences. The study of translation can set up a framework of reference for an
activity that serves as a means of communication, a transmitter of culture, a
technique (one of many, to be used with discretion) of language learning, and a
source of personal pleasure.
III. THE NATURE OF TRANSLATION
According to Nida (1982) 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. But this relatively simple
statement requires careful evaluation of several seemingly contradictory
elements.

3.1. Reproducing the Message

Translating must aim primarily at “reproducing the message.” To do anything
else is essentially false to one’s task as a translator. But to reproduce the message
one must make a good many grammatical and lexical adjustments. Translation
equivalence is defined as a measure of semantic and structural similarity between
correlated units in the two texts (ST and TT). Some of the SL units have
permanent equivalents in TL, that is to say, there is a one-to-one correspondence
between such units and their equivalents. Thus book or machine-gun is always
rendered as sách and súng máy. As a rule this type of correspondence is found
with words of specific character, such as scientific and technical terms, proper or
geographical names and similar words whose meaning is more or less
independent of the particular contextual situation. However, if we compare a
number of TTs with their STs we shall discover that the degree of semantic
similarity between the two texts involved in the translating process may vary. In
other words the equivalence between ST and TT may be based on the
reproduction of different parts of the ST contents. For example, the Hebrew
idiom “bowels of mercies” cannot be literally

rendered into English if one really wants to communicate the message of the
source language, for though we have the words “bowels” and mercy” in English,
we simply do not employ this combination. A meaningful equivalent is "tender
compassion,” and it is precisely in this manner that many translations attempt to
reproduce the significance of this source-language expression.

3.1.1. Equivalence rather than Identity

The translator must strive for equivalence rather than identity. In a sense this is
just another way of emphasizing the reproduction of the message rather than the
conservation of the form of the utterance, but it reinforces the need for radical
alteration of a phrase such as I think or in my opinion which may be quite
meaningless. In other instances, one may use some more natural transitions, e.g.,
you know, and then, now, later...; words or phrases of this kind are sometimes
best not reproduced. Take the following as another example: the sentence Nam
là sinh viên can be translated as Nam is a student, but in English the word student
can mean a school, a university, or a Master or even a Ph.D, student whereas in
Vietnamese it just means a university student. In addition, in Vietnamese there is
no article indicating whether a noun is count or noncount, and definite or
indefinite as in English.

What is important here, therefore, is that equivalence is looked upon as a relation

not only between two actual texts but also between two languages and to
distinguish between the two types of relation Catford (1965) uses the term textual
equivalence (between two texts) and formal correspondent (between two
languages). Formal correspondent is any target language category “which can be
said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the same ‘place’ in the ‘economy’ of the
target language category occupies in the SL” (Catford 1965:27)

3.1.2. Dynamic Equivalence over Formal Correspondence

So far to the point equivalence in translation is considered mainly in terms of form
and meaning (semantic and grammatical). However, over the past years, translation
scholars have focused more on the communicative function than on the notion of
equivalence of the target text. The view of translation as a communicative event
entails that the translator is seen as a bilingual communicator in an intercultural
situation, who, according to Hymes (1972) can competently produce utterances
which, apart from being grammatical, are also appropriate in the given socio-
cultural circumstances. Translation scholars of this school try to characterise
equivalence in terms of function of some sort. Nida (1964), for example, considers
the linguistic sign not as a carrier of linguistic meaning in the first place but as an
entity fulfilling a certain function in a given society. He puts the emphasis on there
being a dynamic equivalence between the translation and the original, by which he
means that the manner in which the target reader responds to the target text must
be the same as that in which the source reader responded to the source text.
(equivalent effect). Equivalence is thus treated here as a functional rather than a
formal category. In this view, linguistic items need to be considered in actual
contexts, not in isolation, carrying communicative rather than abstract value only.
As a result of the shift of attention from the source text as the standard of
comparison to the role of the target text in the target-culture situation functional
adequacy can replace formal equivalence. For this reason, if we look at translations
in terms of the receptors, rather than in terms of their respective forms, then we
introduce another point of view; the intelligibility of the translation. Such
intelligibility is not, however, to be measured merely in terms of whether the words
are understandable and the sentences grammatically constructed, but in terms of
the total impact the message has on the one who receives it.

Dynamic equivalence is therefore to be defined in terms of the degree to which the

receptors of the message in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the
same manner as the receptors in the source language. This response can never be
identical, for the cultural and historical settings are too different, but there should
be a high degree of equivalence of response, or the translation will have failed to
accomplish its purpose.

It would be wrong to think, however, that the response of the receptors in the
second language is merely in terms of comprehension of the information, for
communication is not merely informative. It must also be expressive and
imperative if it is to serve the principal purposes of communications.

3.2. A Natural Equivalent

Natural refers to three areas of the communication process: a natural rendering
should fit the whole receptor language and culture, the context of the specific
message, and the receptor-language audience. Therefore the translation should bear
no obvious trace of a foreign origin. A natural translation would have to deal with
two main areas of adaptation, that is grammar and lexicon. The grammatical
adaptation takes place more readily since one is obliged to make adjustments such
as shifting word order or using nouns instead of verbs in the receptor language.
The lexical structure of the source message is less easily adjusted to the semantic
requirements of the receptor language because there are no strict grammatical rules
but a variety of options.

The best translation does not sound like a translation. Quite naturally one cannot
and should not make a story that happened in the last century sound as if it
happened just some days ago. In other words, a good translation of the story must
not be a “cultural translation.” Rather, it is a “linguistic translation.” Nevertheless,
this does not mean that it should exhibit in its grammatical and stylistic forms any
trace of awkwardness or strangeness. That is to say, it should studiously avoid
“translationese” - formal fidelity, with resulting unfaithfulness to the content and
the impact of the message.