week 4a

FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES IN TRANSLATION STUDIES: KATHARINA REISS AND HANS J. VERMEER


The question most frequently raised during the 1960s and 1970s in the history of Translation Studies was the issue of equivalence: How could it be achieved, and how could a translator accomplish a well-devised, guarded against every possible mistake and straightforward translation were some of the common queries of the discussion among the scholars. The concept of equivalence was observed by Roman Jakobson, Eugene A. Nida, John C. Catford, Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet in their writings. During these decades, different notions of equivalence (i.e. formal and dynamic equivalence, introduction of the idea of shifts, etc) developed within the realm of translation theories. In addition to the preceding contributions to the newly emerging discipline, German scholar Katharina Reiss has taken the very term “functional equivalence” as a starting point for her work, and has carried the concept of equivalence one step further in her studies.

In her seminal article entitled “Type, Kind and Individuality of Text, Decision Making in Translation”, written in 1971, Reiss proposes a methodical text typology, a practical approach to text examination, and a “functional” viewpoint regarding translation. Additionally, Reiss discerns the stipulations affecting the decisions of the translator in her study.

In a manner evoking the studies of the previous scholars, say Roman Jakobson (cf. 2000: 113-118), with respect to the notion of equivalence, Katharina Reiss also takes the work of German linguist Karl Bühler’s book titled Die Sprachtheorie (Language Theory) as a point of commencement, and examines the text types which determine translation. Prior to her proposal of text types, Reiss distinguishes two kinds of “changes” during the communication process: unintentional and intentional changes. She defines the former kind as rising from different language structures whereas the latter kind inevitably involves a change of function in the act of communication and as a matter of fact, –according to Reiss–, contorts the functional equivalence between the source language and the target language. Moreover, during the course of her article, Reiss uses an abundance of examples in order to support her opinions regarding the togetherness of linguistic and non-linguistic action/s (i.e. gestures, facial expressions, etc) within the communication.

Translation, or in Katharina Reiss’ terms a written form of communication, requires the classification of certain text types which the scholar distinguishes as the informative text, the expressive text, the operative text, and the multi-medial text (cf. 2000: 163-165). By distinguishing specific types of texts, Reiss has also paved the way for a better understanding of the translation quality assessment or in other words, translation criticism. In her study entitled Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik (Translation Criticism – The Potentials & Limitations) Reiss expounds on the notion of text typologies along with appropriate translation methods for each text category (cf. 2000: 16-46) and regards the text type “as a literary category of translation criticism” (ibid: 47). In this respect, Katharina Reiss can be considered as one of the pioneers within the history of Translation Studies who took the notion of translation criticism as one of her focal points.

The second stage of Reiss’ phase of analysis “aims at the establishment of the text variety, i.e. the classification of a given text according to specifically structured socio [-] cultural patterns of communication belonging to specific language communities” (2000: 165 italics original). In the third stage, being the crucial one, Reiss treats the translator as an individual due to the fact that a “translator’s ‘decisive battle’ is fought on the level of the text individual, where strategy and tactics are directed by type and variety” (ibid: 166). In this sense, Reiss can be regarded as one of the first scholars who dwelled upon the importance of “decision making” during the course of a translation process.

In light of the thesis pursued in “Type, Kind and Individuality of Text, Decision Making in Translation” together with Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik, a “crucial shift of focus from the isolated lexical item in a language system to the differentiated handling of texts in the act of translation” (Snell-Hornby 1995: 81) has emerged within the realm of Translation Studies. Even though the extent of the text typology proposed by Katharina Reiss was criticized because of its “limited scope” (ibid) and its “lack of exactness in the practical field of the translation” (Göktürk 2002: 85), she has been very influential in focusing attention on the function of text both in the context of the original and in the context of the situation that demands a translation. Yet, the applicability of Katharina Reiss’ text classification to the practical field of translation –especially the domain of literary translation– remains problematic enough. Indeed, as André Lefevere argues, text typologies “draw an unwarrantedly sharp line between ‘literary’ and ‘nonliterary’ texts. They seem to postulate the existence of an ethereal verbal construction that uses only literary elements (what those might be is seldom specified) and that is then excluded from further analysis because it is ‘too complicated’ at the present [at that current] stage of research” (1994: 9).

As Katharina Reiss’ work has elucidated, translation can either be considered as a form of (written) communication, or as a type of human behaviour comprising characteristics pertaining to human actions. In this context, one can infer that the translation process is one of the most important parts for Reiss in her approach in regards to the translation. This approach has been elaborated on by Katharina Reiss’ colleague Hans J. Vermeer in the late 1970s and 1980s. As a consequence of his studies both with Reiss and individually, Vermeer has founded one of the most influential theories within the realm of Translation Studies: the skopos theory.

In his worthwhile article entitled “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action”, written in 1989, and intended by the scholar as a “short sketch” (Vermeer: 1989 173) of his skopos theory, Vermeer provides firstly a brief outline regarding the skopos theory, which is the part of a theory of translational action. It can easily be judged from the name of the umbrella which comprises skopos theory, that is to say, theory of translational action, that, Vermeer sees translation primarily as a type of action. Taking into account the fact that translation is a cultural interaction, Vermeer’s approach can be defined in a broader sense: Translation is a multicultural event. The most striking part of this outline is probably his approach to the translator, or in Vermeer’s words, to the “expert” in his/her field. Taking the translator as an expert for granted, Vermeer takes Reiss’ approach in regards to the translator one step further in his study. Additionally, Vermeer opposes the mainstream notion of regarding translation as a mere matter of language in his second part of the article. The target text, Vermeer writes, “The translatum, is oriented towards the target culture, and it is this which ultimately defines it adequacy” (1989: 175). It is exactly at this point where skopos (derived from the Greek word “ο σκοπός”) reveals itself during translational action. The aim, the goal, the purpose of the translator come into being at this crucial point of the translation process and determines the path which the translation, –and as a consequence the product–, will follow.

Vermeer continues his study by discussing two basic arguments which have been raised against the skopos theory. The first objection “maintains that not all actions have an aim: some have ‘no aim’” (1989: 177). Taking the literary texts as a focal point with respect to this objection, Vermeer goes back to the definition of the very word action and proposes his counter opinion: “if a given act of behaviour has neither goal nor function, nor intention, as regards its realization, result or manner, then it is not an action in the technical sense of the word” (ibid). The second objection “maintains that not every translation can be assigned a purpose, an intention” (ibid: 179) rests upon certain sub-arguments which Vermeer identifies as follows:
“a) The claim that the translator does not have any specific goal, function or intension in mind: he just translates ‘what is in the source text’,
b) The claim that a specific goal, function or intention would restrict the translation possibilities, and hence limit the range of interpretation of the target text in comparison to that of the source text,
c) The claim that the translator has no specific addressee or set of addresses in mind” (ibid).
By providing a set of examples ranging from advertising texts to the news texts from radio and television, Vermeer clarifies the objections which seem to be neglecting the fact that translation is always dependent on the circumstances under which the translation act is being taken. Moreover, this attitude of the objectors of the skopos theory can be taken as a token of their tendencies towards a static approach to the translation. Vermeer’s approach, on the contrary, provides a dynamic approach to the translation act.

Underlying the last part of his article, where Vermeer introduces the concept of translation commission is the fact that a translation should be undertaken in agreement with the translational commission: “One translates as a result of either one’s own initiative or someone else’s: in both cases, that is, one acts in accordance with a ‘commission’” (ibid: 182) and offers a brief analysis to the reader regarding the concept he has introduced. This aspect, intrinsic in the translation process, can also be considered as an initial step which allows for a discussion of the concept of “ethics” in translation.

The ethical aspect of translation was further discussed by Hans J. Vermeer in his studies. Even though almost thirty years have passed since Vermeer first introduced his skopos theory within the region of Translation Studies (published for the first time in 1978), it is still being talked and discussed about. This situation can be taken as a proof of how productive the theory has become due to the debates it has launched in the discipline. In a rather recent conference (held at 30th of May 2003 in the Department of Western Languages and Literatures of Boğaziçi University), for instance, Vermeer has taken the teaching(s) of Ferdinand de Saussure as a starting point, and has discussed the responsibilities and ethics of the translation act from different aspects in his declaration entitled “The Nature of Translating – A Summary”. This study contains an even-handed critique of Saussure’s theory in regards to the linguistic sign. The approach to the translator as an individual which has its roots in the writings of Katharina Reiss in the 1970s was announced/observed more explicitly in Vermeer’s declaration: “A translation depends on the translator’s decision to re-act to a source texteme according to his freedom and responsibility to choose a ‘skopos’ in order to achieve an adequate understanding of the target text (the skopos determined translation) by the intended recipients as expected by the translator” (Vermeer: 2004 265, emphasis added). Without a doubt, one can easily infer that Vermeer is giving priority to the responsibility of the translator, hence the ethics of translation.

Skopos theory as stated in “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action”, and in general terms skopos theory, has allowed the opportunity for scholars to focus on the target text essentially. Translation, formerly determined by a source text, began to be determined by its own purpose. According to Christina Schäffner, “the shift of focus away from source text reproduction to the more independent challenges of target-text production has brought innovation to translation theory. As attention has turned towards the functional aspects of translation towards the explanation of translation decisions, the expertise and ethical responsibility of the translator have come to the fore” (1998: 238-239).

All aspects considered, it can be observed that functional approaches in translation theories have launched new debates –along with certain criticisms of the functional approaches– within the realm of the discipline (cf. Nord: 1997 109-122). Furthermore, fruitful studies have been carried out from different perspectives (for instance, under the umbrella of systemic and descriptive approaches) as a consequence of the innovatory approach of the scholars analyzed here.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

GÖKTÜRK, Akşit, Çeviri: Dillerin Dili, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2002

LEFEVERE, André, Translating Literature, Practice and Theory in a Comparative Literature Context, Second Edition, the Modern Language Association of America, 1994

NORD, Christiane, Translating as a Purposeful Activity, St. Jerome, UK, 1997

SCHÄFFNER, Christina, “Skopos Theory”, in Baker, Mona (ed.), Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, London and New York: Routledge, 1998, pp. 235-238

SNELL-HORNBY, Mary, “Linguistic Transcoding or Cultural Transfer? A Critique of Translation Theory in Germany”, in, Bassnett, Susan and Lefevere, André (eds.), Translation, History and Culture, Cassell, London, 1995, pp. 79-86

REISS, Katharina, “Type, Kind and Individuality of Text, Decision Making in Translation”, in, Venuti, Lawrence (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader, London-New York: Routledge, 2000, pp. 160-171

REISS, Katharina, Translation Criticism – The Potentials & Limitations, trans. Errol F. Rhodes, St. Jerome, UK, 2000

VERMEER, Hans J., “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action”, in, Readings in Translation Theory, (ed.) Andrew Chestermann, Oy Finn Lectura Ab, 1989, pp. 173-200

VERMEER, Hans J., “Çevirinin Doğası – Bir Özet” Çeviri: Şebnem Bahadır-Dilek Dizdar, Çeviri(bilim) nedir? Başkasının Bakışı, Rıfat Mehmet (der.), içinde, İstanbul: Dünya Kitapları, 2004, pp. 257-267

week 3b

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JAMES S. HOLMES IN TRANSLATION STUDIES

The translation act –and attempts to establish a theoretical background for the translation act– date back to the times of Cicero and Horace. Since those times, translation has been regarded as a profession more than a discipline on its own. Up to the twentieth century, translation has been treated as a sub-discipline of (applied) linguistics, literary studies, and so forth. However, in the second half of the twentieth century, fruitful efforts concerning the theoretical aspect of translation have been made among scholars (i.e. J. C. Catford, Eugene A. Nida, Roman Jakobson), and as a consequence, these endeavors have changed the traditional point of view regarding the very word translation. Furthermore, these productive works –by igniting discussions regarding the nature of translation– have played a vital role in creating an independent discipline of translation. It was at this point of time that translation merged with the word studies.

The development and birth of “Translation Studies” as an autonomous discipline can be traced in the 1970s. In his remarkable article entitled “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies”, written in 1972, translation scholar James S. Holmes pursues and discusses the distinctive term for the emerging discipline in modern languages, such as English, German, French, and even in Greek. Consequently, he proposes the word “studies” since the word mentioned can comprise all fields of learning, and supports his argument by showing solid examples of disciplines, that is to say, Russian studies, American studies, Commonwealth studies, and population studies. (cf. Holmes 1988: 70) In this respect, Holmes’ article can be described as a yardstick in the transition period from “translation” to “Translation Studies.”

In addition to founding the appropriate name for the new discipline, Holmes divides the field which he introduced into two significant areas: pure translation studies and applied translation studies. Within the realm of pure translation studies two subdivisions can be observed: descriptive translation studies (DTS) [comprising product-oriented DTS, process-oriented DTS, and function-oriented DTS] and translation theory (also subdivided as general translation theory and partial translation theory.) Within the scope of applied translation studies, Holmes is concerned with the issues of translation policy, translator training, and translation criticism. What is more, during the course of the article, Holmes not only describes divisions and subdivisions of Translation Studies, but also concludes each topic by pointing out possible new research areas. Finally, in the last part of the article, Holmes sets forth that the relationship between theoretical, descriptive, and applied translation studies is dialectical and unites all the branches mentioned above. Furthermore, in his study Holmes stresses out the socio-cultural dimension of translation (which has often been neglected by the most of the scholars before.) Holmes’ concluding sentence: “Let the meta-discussion begin” (Holmes 1988: 79) signifies an initial attempt to establish the necessary theoretical background for Translation Studies.

With Holmes’ distinctive approach towards translation and Translation Studies, the translator, who has often been shrouded by the source text author/culture, has found the opportunity to gain the identity as an expert s/he deserved long ago. Additionally, translation act, and logically translators have broken free (as much as they can) from the eternal bonds between themselves and the source language/culture/author. Also, it has been realized and accepted that a “good” and a “true” translation cannot only depend on the source language, culture, or author. Moreover, by taking Holmes’ study as a starting point, other scholars have focused on the target language/culture and developed beneficial theories regarding Translation Studies. German scholar Hans J. Vermeer, for instance, takes the translator as an “expert” in his/her field for granted and establishes part of his prolific Skopos Theory mainly on that assumption (cf. Vermeer 1989: 174).

All aspects considered, Holmes and his studies concerning Translation Studies have played a major role in the discipline’s emergence and prosperity. In the light of said author, translator and translation have been awarded more attention in the academic field and the discipline started to be regarded as an autonomous one.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Holmes, James S.: “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies”, Translated!: Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies (1972), Amsterdam/Rodopi, 1988, pp. 66-80.

Vermeer, Hans J.: “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action”, Readings in Translation Theory, (ed.) Andrew Chestermann, Oy Finn Lectura Ab, 1989, pp.173-200.

week 3a

EUGENE A. NIDA AND HIS “PRINCIPLES OF CORRESPONDENCE”

According to Ezra Pound, “in the long run the translator is in all probability impotent to do all of the work for the linguistically lazy reader” (1954: 200). Even though more than fifty years (and if taken into account of the fact that Pound’s essay entitled Cavalcanti was first published in 1934, it can also be said more than seventy years) have passed since Pound’s comment, the situation still maintains its original state. Indeed, a reader demands –logically and naturally– to have in his/her hands a translation that is equivalent of the original work, and seems to neglect all the process which the translator has been through in order to reach that equivalence in the work s/he created. It is merely the outcome that counts for the reader.

In terms of Translation Studies, however, the very word “equivalence” is more than a term to be observed and studied as an outcome, and as a matter of fact, many fruitful attempts have been made in order to found a theory of equivalence within the realm of the discipline. Of these studies, Eugene A. Nida’s work has taken particularly linguistics as a focal point for the arguments raised in the study.

The theory of equivalence in Translation Studies was analyzed in detail by the American scholar Eugene A. Nida (mostly celebrated with his Holy Bible translation apart from his theoretical contributions to translation studies) in his article entitled “Principles of Correspondence” in 1964. Prior to explaining his assumptions regarding the concept of equivalence, Nida first suggests three different types of translations: “(1) the nature of the message, (2) the purpose or purposes of the author and, by proxy, of the translator, and (3) the type of the audience” (2000: 127). Nida’s distinction among the types of translations in the beginning of his work can be regarded as an evident sign of the author’s main concern with the content and with the form of the message. Nida goes on examining the nature of the message in terms of content and form by showing discriminations of poetry translation. Actually, the author connects these two components of translations and analyzes them in the sense of content and style: “The primary purpose of the translator may be information as to both content and form” (ibid: 128). Furthermore, Nida sets forth the type of the audience (the capacity of children, literates, the average literate adult and the decoding ability of the specialists’ of the target society) which the translation is intended to reach has to be taken into consideration as well.

After giving a brief account of three types of different translations, Nida asserts two sorts of equivalence: The former, namely the formal equivalence (which takes the message of the source text in both form and content as a focal point, and tries to render it word to word, concept to concept, etc), and the latter, being the dynamic equivalence (which aims at revealing the whole naturalness of the source language in the target language). Additionally, the author discusses the basic requirements of a translation from various angles, and draws a conclusion related to translation: “What one must attempt, however, is an affective blend of ‘matter and manner’, for these two aspects of any message are inseparably united” (ibid: 134).

Despite the fact that in Nida’s article, the reader might grasp that the author is in favor of the implementation of the dynamic equivalence as a more productive translation process, he maintains that the formal equivalence in translation can still be appropriate for specific type of audience: “It might be supposed that such translations are categorically ruled out. To the contrary, they are often perfectly valid translations of certain types of messages for certain types of audiences” (ibid: 135). Although Nida holds a supportive opinion towards formal equivalence in some respects, he is mainly concerned with the notion of dynamic equivalence in translation. “In such a translation”, writes Nida, “the focus attention is directed not so much toward the source message, as toward the receptor response” (ibid: 136). In other words, in agreement with the author, dynamic equivalence can be explained as a translation principle according to which a translator pursues to translate the meaning of the original text in a way which would have the same effect on the target culture reader. Nida goes on his article by drawing attention to the governing terms of dynamic equivalence translation and justifies his argument by providing various examples of the Holy Bible translation.

In the general scheme of Eugene A. Nida’s linguistic based approach on translation, one can observe that his study seem to neglect the socio-cultural aspect of translation to some extent. Moreover, translation in its very nature is not a solely matter of linguistics but also includes contributions from other fields as well. Although this notion of translation seems to be disregarded by Nida to some degree, his fruitful analysis rife with corresponding examples regarding the notion of equivalence can be regarded as an important study within the realm of Translation Studies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Eugene Nida, “The Principles of Correspondence” in Lawrence Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader, London-New York: Routledge, 2000, pp. 126-140

Pound, Ezra, Literary Essays of Ezra Pound, New York and Directions, and London: Faber and Faber, 1954

week 2

SOME REMARKS ON THE EVOLUTION OF CONTEMPORARY TRANSLATION THEORIES

Bertolt Brecht, who is regarded as one of the most influential theatre theorists of the twentieth century, was commonly reluctant to have his theoretical writings translated into foreign languages. This attitude of Brecht may seem like a contradiction with the German dramatist’s stance which was based on a dialectical relationship between the reader and the writer. On the other hand, one can easily grasp that Brecht was aware of the fact that the translation act was a self-referential form and would therefore, certainly include various viewpoints of different translators who undertake such a painstaking task under several socio-cultural circumstances. Since Brecht’s theoretical writings were his self-defence against the critics, who were hesitant towards his form of theatre, Brecht wanted his writings to stay untouched just because of the fact that any loss of meaning in those works could also distort the main points of his arguments on which he has built his theories upon. During the course of time, however, it would be the translations of the German playwright that would allow him to gain the recognition within the realm of theatre history. Even Brecht, who can be considered as a totally irrelevant figure with the study and practice of translation, was conscious of the perils that lurk beneath the translation process.

The concerns of Brecht on the notion of translation have long been occupied the minds of the scholars in the history of the study and practice of translation who are mainly regarded as the chief figures of contemporary translation theories nowadays. Most of the works of these scholars, on the other hand, were primarily focused on the notions of fidelity, faithfulness, equivalence, all of which were/are closely related with the very word translation, and as a consequence, they failed to examine the socio-cultural aspect of translation to a certain extent in the long run. As a matter of fact, translation theories were bound to be source-oriented until the last decade of the twentieth century. Yet, their contribution to the evolution of contemporary translation theories is undeniable. Hence, a brief analysis of the writings of four major literary figures, say, Etienne Dolet (1509-1546), John Dryden (1631-1700), Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813) and Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), and all of whom were chiefly associated with the study and practice of translation would yield a better understanding of the roots of contemporary translation theories. Still, in order to conceive an entire understanding of contemporary translation theories, a comparison between the Western thinking and the Eastern thinking on translation suggests itself as another point to be discussed.

In his essay entitled How to Translate Well From One Language to Another (1540), Etienne Dolet sets forth five main requirements for one who is eager to fulfil the translation task. According to Donet, the translator ought to be competent enough to understand the complete meaning of the source text and when necessary should take the liberty of polishing the obscurities of the source text author, ought to have a perfect knowledge of both source language and target language, ought to prevent him or herself from word-for-word translation, ought to choose the daily expressions, and ought to produce a translation which can sound, say, in terms of phonetics, rhyme, and tone as the same as the source text (cf. Robinson 2002: 95-97 with Bassnett: 2004 58-59). Despite the fact that Dolet proposes to avoid word-for-word translation, and advises the translator to take the liberty of clarifying the obscurities of the source text, he does not explain how to do so. Furthermore, by proposing principles and advising the translator to follow these, Dolet seems to restrict the quality of translation to his rules, hence develops a reductionist approach.

More than a century later, John Dryden, who was one of the most influential figures of the history of critical theory, introduced the concepts of metaphrase, paraphrase and imitation to the study and practice of translation. In Dryden’s understanding, metaphrase represented word-for-word translation, paraphrase, sense-for-sense translation, and imitation, free translation. By adding a third dimension, that is to say, imitation, to the study and practice of translation, Dryden has (re)evaluated the theories established by the scholars dating from the times of Cicero and Horace. Nevertheless, Dryden’s idea of imitation was nothing new when his dramatic works are taken into account; he was only implementing t/his idea on the translation act.

Dryden’s engagement with drama coincides with the Restoration Era in which a new wave of drama tradition (heavily influenced by the tragedies of Racine and Corneille) was competing for the throne of Shakespearean tragedy. Dryden saw himself as the one to resist this tradition and attempted to restore the dominant tragic sense of the Elizabethan Era by adding a neo-classic approach to the already established dramatic understanding. In order to do so, he wrote various plays most of which became unsuccessful. After that failure, Dryden drew heavily on his theoretical writings, though, he continued to write plays; plays which imitated Shakespeare. In his preface to All for Love (1678), Dryden defends his style by stating, “[the confines of neo-classical drama] are too little for English tragedy; which requires to be built in a larger compass… In my style, I have professed to imitate the divine Shakespeare” (quoted in Steiner 1996: 40). In the light of this clear statement, one can acquire a better understanding of Dryden’s notion of imitation which he imposed upon to the study and practice of translation. What is more, one can even be tempted to interpret Dryden’s remark on imitation, “I take imitation of an author…to be an endeavour of a later poet to write like one who has written before him [or her], on the same subject; that is, not to translate his [or her] words, or to be confined to his [or her] sense, but only to set him [or her] as a pattern, and to write, as [s/]he supposes that author would have done...” (Robinson 2002: 172) as a comment he has granted upon himself. Even though Dryden’s arguments rest on a solid ground when the aesthetic reasons are considered, his approach is source-oriented, prescriptive, and confines the translation act to the principles he states.

Although it may sound prescriptive enough –and indeed it is– Alexander Fraser Tytler’s essay entitled The Proper Task of a Translator (1791) gives a hint or two about the contemporary translation theories. Of course, the Dolet-echoing-laws that Tytler deduces from translation are not the clues related with contemporary translation theory; rather the explanations given for his laws. Take, for instance, these two excerpts:

Where the sense of an author is doubtful, and where more than one meaning can be given to the same passage or expression (which, by the bye, is always a defect in composition), the translator is called upon to exercise his [or her] judgment, and to select that meaning which is most consonant to the train of thought in the whole passage, or to the author’s usual mode of thinking, and of expressing him [or her] self.

A good translator must be able to discover at once the true character of his [or her] author’s style. [S/]he must ascertain with precision to what class it belong; whether to that of the grave, the elevated, the easy, the lively, the florid and ornamented, or the simple and unaffected; and these characteristic qualities [s/]he must have the capacity of rendering equally conspicuous in the translation as in the original.

(Robinson 2002: 172)

In these passages, one can see how Tytler regards translation –though much more explicitly than Dolet– as a decision making process to some extent in a manner evoking the ideas put forth by Katharina Reiss and Hans J. Vermeer, the two distinguished translation scholars whom are mostly celebrated with their functional approaches to the study and practice of translation. Vermeer, by regarding translator as an expert in his or her field, founds some parts of his “skopos” theory on this premise. Moreover, particularly the second excerpt brings to mind the text types proposed by Katharina Reiss. Reiss, by distinguishing text types under categories, have developed an influential theory which eventually paved the way for new approaches in translation criticism (cf. Reiss 2000: 160-171, Vermeer 1989: 173-200). In this sense, one can see the importance of (re)evaluating Tytler’s study from the standpoint of contemporary translation theories.

Following Tytler, Friedrich Schleiermacher suggests himself as one of the other important theorists of post-romanticism period to take a brief glance at. Schleirmacher, who is widely recognized by his studies in the field of hermeneutics and theology, has also contributed to the domain of translation. In his study entitled On Different Methods of Translating, Schleirmacher –as the title signifies– seriously questions the established translation methods, such as paraphrase and imitation. The scholar draws a conclusion: Whereas paraphrase is more commonly used in scholarly translation products, imitation is generally implemented in literary translations, and neither of them can fulfil the ultimate needs of the translation act. Instead of these two translation methods, Schleirmacher sets forth his own translation methods, namely “reader-to-author” approach and “author-to reader” approach; the translator being the mediator. In the first approach the translator disturbs the writer as little as possible and moves the reader in his or her direction, whereas, in the second approach, the translator disturbs the reader as little as possible and moves the writer in his or her direction (cf. Robinson: 2002 228). And among those two he favours first method: bringing the reader to the author. By regarding translator as a mediator, thereby giving priority to the translator during the course of translation, Schleirmacher’s approach once again evokes Hans J. Vermeer’s ideas. What makes Schleirmacher’s study quite prescriptive is the fact that he strongly rejects another approach.

In the light of this general overview of the works of the four major theorists of Western translation tradition, one can infer how most of the points raised in their studies sound prescriptive to a certain extent as opposed to the descriptive approach prevailing in contemporary translation theories. Even so, these scholars have planted the seeds of contemporary understanding of translation by discussing points which would eventually become the most important points (i.e. text types, considering translator as an expert, domestication versus foreignization, and so forth) during the course of building a totally different approach to the study and practice of translation.

So, what could be the possible reason/s which impeded the Western thinking on translation from liberating itself from the boundaries of faithfulness and freedom? In his influential essay “Chinese and Western Thinking on Translation”, André Lefevere sees religion as an answer to that question. According to Lefevere, “translators of the Buddhist scriptures learned to live with the fact that their translations were done by mortals and would therefore of necessity be imperfect” (1998: 19), while on the contrary the translators of Holy Scriptures in the West strictly clung on to their source texts just because of the fact that it was the Word of God. Such an understanding emerging from the translations of the Holy Scripture became dispersed in almost all of the translation practices. Moreover, during the course of time, this understanding affected to a certain extent the understanding of translation in history.

Another important difference between the two traditions is the way that how the translations were being done. Whereas the translations in the East were being done in three stages (the first being the oral interpretation of the text, the second being the oral instruction, transmission and recitation, and the third being the inscribing process) Western translations were being done by only single person; the rest of the people being the assistant. Perhaps that was the most striking difference between the two traditions and one might find it enticing to link these three stages with the Eastern drama tradition which is mainly based on the notion of alienation, that is to say, being aware of acting the play as being merely a play. To return once again to Bertolt Brecht’s understanding of theatre which is heavily influenced by the Eastern drama tradition, one can associate German dramatist’s exploring this tradition and deriving his theories from that, might achieve a solid ground. In a manner evoking the early Chinese translators who were undertaking teamwork, Bertolt Brecht himself established this group-work in his own theatre Berliner Ensemble.

All in all, as this brief overlook to the works of the four major theorists of the Western tradition along with a brief comparison of them with the Eastern thinking on translation hopefully signified, the roots of contemporary translation theory have already been there and were merely waiting to be discovered. Unfortunately, thanks to the reductionist and the prescriptive approach prevailed in the Western tradition, the socio-cultural aspect of the study and practice of translation has been ignored for a long time.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bassnett, Susan, Translation Studies, Third Edition, London-New York: Routledge, 2004

Bassnett, Susan and Lefevere, André (eds.), Constructing Cultures, Multilungual Matters, Clevedon, 1998

Reiss, Katharina, “Type, Kind and Individuality of Text, Decision Making in Translation”, in, Venuti, Lawrence (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader, London-New York: Routledge, 2000, 160-171

Robinson, Douglas (ed.) Western Translation Theory: from Herodotus to Nietzsche, St. Jerome, UK, 2002

Steiner, George, The Death of Tragedy, Yale University Press, USA, 1996

Vermeer, Hans J., “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action”, in, Readings in Translation Theory, (ed.) Andrew Chestermann, Oy Finn Lectura Ab, 1989, 173-200