It’s well known that, today, Gideon Toury’s redefinition of translation as an empirical phenomenon is considered among the most popular of such attempts aiming to free the discipline from its ‘speculative’ impression. As seen in the Bibliographies of the current research in the field, both the exemplary methodology and the conceptual tools offered keep providing a fruitful framework and a sound approach. Just like Even-Zohar’s ‘repertoire’, ‘central-peripheral’, ‘primary-secondary’ etc, today, Toury’s ‘norms’ and ‘laws’ are the mostly referred concepts within studies that take translation as a cultural phenomena.
In Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Toury follows a rather systematic path in siting translation on empirical grounds. Heading from establishing interrelations between the sub-branches of Holmes’s map, Toury bestows the descriptive branch with a pivotal position and embarks upon problematizing the internal organization of this branch. As also frequently emphasized in the next chapters, one can’t conduct a function, product or process oriented study in isolation since these all the determinants of one another and work for the construction of the bigger picture- that is the conception of translation within the particular culture- which is the main concern of Toury. He establishes these types of interdependencies between various concepts concerning the field in order to reveal translation’s being a complex cultural phenomenon necessitating a deeper focus on the empirical level.
‘It’s only through DTS that hypothesis could be tested’ says Toury; by doing so, he puts a rational behind the importance he adheres to the descriptive branch of the discipline. Afterwards, comes his exemplary methodology for such empirical research: heading from the product, the interrelations, specific conditions, norms, and ultimately laws will be driven out. As seen, the researcher is expected to show a progress from empirical to the hypothetical level. It should be stated that, in Toury’s theory, all descriptive study (that involves defining interrelations, deriving regularities of behavior, searchig for motivations and constraints) works for a hypothesis of a higher and more general level. However much the importance of particular is stressed, those particulars are aimed to form a general unity. One shouldn’t forget that, there are still implications of a general theory of translation in Toury’s theory, which departs him from contemporary scholars of ‘power turn’ that embrace ‘heterogenity’ in a different manner.
Since an analysis ofan empirical research starts from the product, it’s the target text- or ‘assumed translation’ in Toury’s terms- that the research begins with. Together with this fact, it’s the ultimate aim’s being ‘deriving out what is concerned as translational in target culture’ that makes Toury’s approach target-oriented. There are initial assumptions that the researcher take for granted in approaching the product:
'...an assumed translation would be regarded as any target-culture text for which there are reasons to tentatively posit the existence of another text, in another culture and language, from which it was presumedly derived by transfer operations and to which it is now tied by certain relationships, some of which may be regarded- within that culture- as necessary and/or sufficient.' (Toury 1995: 35)
With these assumptions in mind, the process of analysis starts. First the individual text is studied (here the question of what makes the text a translation in that particular culture/context is asked), then comes the comparative analysis and the establishment of possible relations between the source and target texts, and finally, generalizations concerning the whole process are formulated. (As seen, there’s a transition from a retrospective perspective to the prospective one here: first form the existing product, the regularities of behavior are deriven out, then comes the generalizations and possible guidelines for future behavior) In this three-phased process, the main (and perhaps only) stage of the traditional approach- that is the comparison- seems to be subordinated to contextualization. However, later problematizations of the concept of ‘equivalence’ within the book reveal that Toury has actually put great effort in overcoming the circularities brought by the traditional binaries and especially the notion of equivalence. Although ‘equivalence’ is shown simply as ‘the norm of pair of texts’- one of the million norms- the peculiar focus on it reveals that it isn’t as insignificant of a deal.
Firstly, as all other norms, equivalence is historical and can’t be focused in isolation (without being located into the context). And it is also, as other norms, a medium between the product and the general hypothesis driven out of its analysis: Through observing the similarities between the equivalence relations within a large corpus of translated texts, the researcher ends up with some answers(‘why certain decisions are made in other similar texts?’, ‘why certain target-source relations are prioritized over others?’ etc), and therefore, arrives at general hypothetical formulations. From this perspective, equivalence is solely one of the norms defined by Toury as a ‘stepping stone that is of little importance itself’. On the other hand, since it is described as the main tool of of ‘distinguishing appropriate from inappropriate modes of translation performance for the culture in question’ (1995: 86), and since the upmost aim of this empirical research proposed by Toury is defined as ‘deriving out appropriate translational behavior in a certain context’, it doesn’t seem to be such an insignificant concern of the translation phenomena, even for Toury.
Overall, the framework provided by DTS of Toury is of great importance, especially in terms of its applicability in scholarly work. Heading from the translation product to derive constraints and motives behind translation, regularities of behavior, and relational priorities bestows it with a pivotal position within the grand translational scheme. The absence of such popular terms of today’s traslation theory as power/agent/ideology opens the theory to criticisms; still, as in Even-Zohar’s systemic approach, this theory doesn’t reject the existence of them, therefore doesn’t postulate an inconsistency with Toury’s later works that involves such components. Perhaps, instead of that, it’d be misleading to take this theory as the one that totally transcends the source-target binary and the notion of equivalence. Although there’s a great emphasis on the target text (and justifications of such cases in which no source text exists), one of the three assumptions within an assumed translation is ‘the existence of a source’. It’s still through a comparative analysis of the textual segments that the researcher acquires empirical information which would take her/him to a general formulation. And equivalence is still a highly problematized notion regarding the phenomena of translation. What’s new in Toury is that establishing the equivalence relationship or finding shifts isn’t the last phase of a research (though they can be taken as the last ‘empirical phase’).
References
Toury, Gideon
1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond
31 Ekim 2009 Cumartesi
23 Ekim 2009 Cuma
Systemic Thinking
In his “Polysystem Theory”, Itamar Even-Zohar defines translation as a multi-referential activity that concerns ‘a complex bundle of relationships’ rather than a unidirectional transfer of a specific text into another language. By doing so, he takes not the isolated texts but the ‘systems’ they belong to as his main subject of study. It’s for sure that it’s a grand task to take source and target systems as a main concern rather than merely a translated text and its original and this may direct the focus towards other issues apart from translation at times. Still, only such a wide view seems to achieve such comprehensive and accurate results in the analysis of the phenomena of translation, especially when it comes to locating it into the larger historical contexts.
1. General terms
In his systemic approach towards translation, Even-Zohar resorts to explicating the phenomena through embracing both sides of the binaries. The clear-cut and stable distinctions in between are effaced, because the possibility of changing roles never ceases. That’s why the first thing that comes to my mind in Even-Zohar’s theory is the constant dynamic in his explication: the non-canonized becomes canonized, primary produces the secondary, the peripheral dethrones the central, the dynamic becomes stable, heterogeneous becomes homogenous, and according all these types of positional shifts, the norms, therefore translational behavior, change. All this change brings forth not only the historical characteristic of the phenomena but also the existence of its multi-referential nature.
2. Positing translated literature within the scheme
After drawing the portrayal of his general view that relates the phenomena of translation with its surrounding dynamics and explicates the general functioning (in terms of internal and external proceedings and interactions) of such an interactive situation, Even-Zohar embarks upon defining the ‘concrete’ position of translation within the literary polysystem.
Firstly he clarifies the fact that translated literature is both a system of its own that carries its own internal concerns (possessing a hierarchical order, dynamic stratification betwen layers etc) and an active agent within the functioning of the literary polysystem. Even-Zohar enumerates three cases in which this active participation of translation is given a central position: when the literature is young, when it’s peripheral (and is exposed to the hegemonia of the central literature), when such turning points as ‘literary vacuum’ occur. Obviously , in all three cases, translation introduces new literary models to the target culture.
Explaining his three cases, Even-Zohar makes a distinction between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ literatures, the former of which is claimed to be dependent on the phenomena of translation more. Firstly, it should be noted that Even-Zohar’s dynamic-favoring theory sees stability as a threaten for the existence of any system. Both weak and strong literatures are in need of the ‘change’ eventually. The difference, as he points, is that the ‘strong’ is able to produce the new with its internal components, whereas, the ‘weak’ is in need of an external interaction, or transfer one may call it, to meet new models. ‘Strong’ has its peripheral components that would nourish it in the case of stagnation, whereas, ‘weak’ directly resorts to ‘import’ in such cases.
These all reminded me the period in which Turkish literary system bestowed translation with a central position. Which of the three cases could be a rational behind this historical positioning? The literature was in its establishment process, it occupied a peripheral position within the general literary polysystem, and there was a ‘literary vacuum’ (‘no item in the indigenious stock is taken to be acceptable’ Even-Zohar 1990: 194). All three carry their historical motives, and most importantly, here, ‘power’ occupies a great position. In the case of the development of Turkish literary system in particular, translation is ‘made’ to occupy a central position, whereas, Even-Zohar seems to refer to a ‘natural’ type of transition from peripheral to central (as a natural outcome of the dynamic stratification within the system). Still, I suppose, this case justifies his major thesis of the existence ‘complex bundle of relationships’ within the positioning of the phenomena. There’ll always be more to explore, since this is not a unidirectional transfer from a single source to a single target. As Even-Zohar also states, there are always such preliminary stages as selecting the text and arousing a necessity in the target culture and other stages as breaking the resistence and making it function properly.
3. Lastly: `Transfer` in more concrete terms
In his article “The Making of Culture Repertoire and the Role of Transfer”, Even-Zohar concretizes the terms he’s refered within “Polysystem Theory” through using the concepts of ‘power’, ‘market’ and ‘repertoire’ interrelatedly. Here, zooming out of the textual level, Even-Zohar focuses on the process of ‘cultural transfer’and systematizes the development and functioning of cultural ‘repertoire’.
In this article, new concepts such as ‘necessity’, ‘resistance’ and ‘consumption’ are introduced to the context of ‘transfer’. As seen, the process is enlargened, the agents involved (either active or passive) are increased, therefore the phenomena of ‘transfer’ is subjected to a more extensive problematization. In consistence with his previous statements, Even-Zohar defines the making of repertoire as a constant activity. ‘Goods’ are imported, either accepted or rejected, and if accepted, function either on the level of active repertoire (and construct a strategy of action) or the passive one (enable world ‘make-sense’). It’s important that here Even-Zohar touches on the role of ‘agents’ more than he does in his other articles. For instance, if the ‘good’ carries the potential of being rejected, the importer(s) develop strategies of creating a necessity or ‘willingness to consume new goods’ in his terms. (It’s interesting that here Even-Zohar gives examples from both ‘material’ goods such as black pepper or ‘semiotic’ goods such as hygienic habits) Briefly, to make ‘import’ a ‘transfer’, the importer is involved within a post-transition process. Moreover, there are even such cases in which the personality of these importers (which has never been mentioned in prior theories!) ‘shadow’ the products they propose.
As also seen clearly in this essay, in all his three articles Even-Zohar emphasizes one thing on top: translation is much more a complex activity than has been introduced by the prior approaches. His attempts of both generalizing and explicating this concern in more concete terms in a consistent manner is a great matter of appreciation. Such attempts both expand the borders of the discipline itself and arouse an awareness of the grand function of the phenomena within the cultural progress.
References
Even-Zohar Itamar
"Polysystem Theory"
"The Position of Translated Literature Within the Literary Polysystem"
"The Making of Repertoire and The Role of Transfer"
1. General terms
In his systemic approach towards translation, Even-Zohar resorts to explicating the phenomena through embracing both sides of the binaries. The clear-cut and stable distinctions in between are effaced, because the possibility of changing roles never ceases. That’s why the first thing that comes to my mind in Even-Zohar’s theory is the constant dynamic in his explication: the non-canonized becomes canonized, primary produces the secondary, the peripheral dethrones the central, the dynamic becomes stable, heterogeneous becomes homogenous, and according all these types of positional shifts, the norms, therefore translational behavior, change. All this change brings forth not only the historical characteristic of the phenomena but also the existence of its multi-referential nature.
2. Positing translated literature within the scheme
After drawing the portrayal of his general view that relates the phenomena of translation with its surrounding dynamics and explicates the general functioning (in terms of internal and external proceedings and interactions) of such an interactive situation, Even-Zohar embarks upon defining the ‘concrete’ position of translation within the literary polysystem.
Firstly he clarifies the fact that translated literature is both a system of its own that carries its own internal concerns (possessing a hierarchical order, dynamic stratification betwen layers etc) and an active agent within the functioning of the literary polysystem. Even-Zohar enumerates three cases in which this active participation of translation is given a central position: when the literature is young, when it’s peripheral (and is exposed to the hegemonia of the central literature), when such turning points as ‘literary vacuum’ occur. Obviously , in all three cases, translation introduces new literary models to the target culture.
Explaining his three cases, Even-Zohar makes a distinction between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ literatures, the former of which is claimed to be dependent on the phenomena of translation more. Firstly, it should be noted that Even-Zohar’s dynamic-favoring theory sees stability as a threaten for the existence of any system. Both weak and strong literatures are in need of the ‘change’ eventually. The difference, as he points, is that the ‘strong’ is able to produce the new with its internal components, whereas, the ‘weak’ is in need of an external interaction, or transfer one may call it, to meet new models. ‘Strong’ has its peripheral components that would nourish it in the case of stagnation, whereas, ‘weak’ directly resorts to ‘import’ in such cases.
These all reminded me the period in which Turkish literary system bestowed translation with a central position. Which of the three cases could be a rational behind this historical positioning? The literature was in its establishment process, it occupied a peripheral position within the general literary polysystem, and there was a ‘literary vacuum’ (‘no item in the indigenious stock is taken to be acceptable’ Even-Zohar 1990: 194). All three carry their historical motives, and most importantly, here, ‘power’ occupies a great position. In the case of the development of Turkish literary system in particular, translation is ‘made’ to occupy a central position, whereas, Even-Zohar seems to refer to a ‘natural’ type of transition from peripheral to central (as a natural outcome of the dynamic stratification within the system). Still, I suppose, this case justifies his major thesis of the existence ‘complex bundle of relationships’ within the positioning of the phenomena. There’ll always be more to explore, since this is not a unidirectional transfer from a single source to a single target. As Even-Zohar also states, there are always such preliminary stages as selecting the text and arousing a necessity in the target culture and other stages as breaking the resistence and making it function properly.
3. Lastly: `Transfer` in more concrete terms
In his article “The Making of Culture Repertoire and the Role of Transfer”, Even-Zohar concretizes the terms he’s refered within “Polysystem Theory” through using the concepts of ‘power’, ‘market’ and ‘repertoire’ interrelatedly. Here, zooming out of the textual level, Even-Zohar focuses on the process of ‘cultural transfer’and systematizes the development and functioning of cultural ‘repertoire’.
In this article, new concepts such as ‘necessity’, ‘resistance’ and ‘consumption’ are introduced to the context of ‘transfer’. As seen, the process is enlargened, the agents involved (either active or passive) are increased, therefore the phenomena of ‘transfer’ is subjected to a more extensive problematization. In consistence with his previous statements, Even-Zohar defines the making of repertoire as a constant activity. ‘Goods’ are imported, either accepted or rejected, and if accepted, function either on the level of active repertoire (and construct a strategy of action) or the passive one (enable world ‘make-sense’). It’s important that here Even-Zohar touches on the role of ‘agents’ more than he does in his other articles. For instance, if the ‘good’ carries the potential of being rejected, the importer(s) develop strategies of creating a necessity or ‘willingness to consume new goods’ in his terms. (It’s interesting that here Even-Zohar gives examples from both ‘material’ goods such as black pepper or ‘semiotic’ goods such as hygienic habits) Briefly, to make ‘import’ a ‘transfer’, the importer is involved within a post-transition process. Moreover, there are even such cases in which the personality of these importers (which has never been mentioned in prior theories!) ‘shadow’ the products they propose.
As also seen clearly in this essay, in all his three articles Even-Zohar emphasizes one thing on top: translation is much more a complex activity than has been introduced by the prior approaches. His attempts of both generalizing and explicating this concern in more concete terms in a consistent manner is a great matter of appreciation. Such attempts both expand the borders of the discipline itself and arouse an awareness of the grand function of the phenomena within the cultural progress.
References
Even-Zohar Itamar
"Polysystem Theory"
"The Position of Translated Literature Within the Literary Polysystem"
"The Making of Repertoire and The Role of Transfer"
17 Ekim 2009 Cumartesi
Functional Equivalence vs Skopos
As approached towards the descriptive era, it’s obvious that the theories get to become more systematized (almost scientific at times) and such concerns of translational practice as translatorship initial aim and process become the theoreticians’ subjects of problematization besides the traditional subjects of initial point (ST) and end product (TT). Thus, one can easily observe the fact that the scope of translation studies is pushing beyond its traditional boundaries.
Although mostly categorized under the same title- ‘functional theories’,the theories of Reiss and Vermeer could be taken as an end of an era and beginning of an era respectively. It’s not hard to define the theory of Reiss as source oriented, since she’s still in search of an equivalence of some sort, whereas, the theory of Vermeer proposes a complete independency from the source. How come they both are classified as ‘functional theorists’ then? It’s obvious that their approaches towards ‘equivalence’ differ. Reiss still discusses the transmission of a part of the source text (as a partial equivalence proponent), whereas, Vermeer puts forward his approach of ‘acquiring adequacy through obeying the skopos’ and proposes the possibility of ‘full transmission’ in these terms. To him, one-to-one type of correspondence, or such techniques as translating according to text-type, constitute solely a few of the many possible ways.
Interrelated with their differing approaches towards ‘functional equivalence’, the theories of Reiss and Vermeer are target-oriented to different extents. Reiss legitimates the usage of a different text type while ‘reverbalizing’ the source text only if the target culture’s ‘habits of textualization’ differ form that of the source (Reiss 1971: 165). It’s true that her proposing the translator various options- translation according to sense and meaning, translating by identification, adoptive translating- is a sign of her acknowledging the legitimacy of more than one target-texts. However, multiplying the Reiss’s options, the skopos theory of Vermeer not only breaks the limits brought by source-orientedness (which still exists in Reiss), but also gains the target text an autonomous character, bestowing the target-text with its own textual potentials. It’s no longer a product of secondary communication as in Reiss’s theory, instead, it carries its own communicative purposes other than those of the source text. In this way, Vermeer’s theory carries the ‘function’ of Reiss one step further in both positioning the translator as an expert of decisions and defining the target text as a text of its own.
Taking the very end of Reiss’s article as his point of departure- in the part titled as ‘special cases’ in which she admits the possibility of the lack of functional equivalence- Vermeer builds a whole theory on ‘relativizing the traditional viewpoint’ (Vermeer 1989: 185). It’s a grand scheme that he draws. First he passes beyond the previous conceptions of translation through the defining the act neither as a linguistic phenomena nor as a form of communication. As implied in how he refers translation to-that is ‘translational action’, translation is taken as a form of human behavior that has a specific purpose and brings about an end-product. In this `purpose` point, Reiss and Vermeer’s theory intersect. It’s true that Reiss proposes only a limited number of purposes all of which are relatively source oriented, whereas,to Vermeer all purposes are legitimite (as long as they support the translational action and the endproduct), which increases the possible number of target texts coming out of a single source text. But the point they end up with in referring to the concep to of ‘purpose’ are rather similar: to introduce translation as a conscious activity. Vermeer’s determining a skopos and Reiss’s translational stages of ‘analysis&reverbalization’ both serve for this. On the one hand there are the classifications of Reiss (intentional vs unintentional changes, 4 different text-types, 3 modes of translating etc) , and on the other, there’s the well-developed terminology of Vermeer (skopos,commission,translatum,adequacy,expert). Don’t they both serve for a scientific (or professional one may call it) conception of translation? Through referring such schematisms, aren’t they legitimizing the concept of translation, the act of the translator and their studies as translation scholars with one shot?
Supposedly, in both theories there’s a search for a general theory of translation, which could be inferred from the meticulous methodologies they resort to . In one, it’s the text type of the source that directs the act of translation, in the other, it’s the skopos that takes this responsibility. In both, the endproduct of the action is valued (though it’s more so in Vermeer’s theory), which reveals that the absolute hegemonia of the source is gradually becoming a myth. And how to achieve a general theory of translation through the insistently interfering concept of ‘cultural context’ is gradually becoming an inextricable mystery.
REFERENCES
Reiss, Katharina
1971"Type, Kind and Individuality of Text"
Vermeer, Hans J.
1989"Skopos and Commission in Translational Action"
Although mostly categorized under the same title- ‘functional theories’,the theories of Reiss and Vermeer could be taken as an end of an era and beginning of an era respectively. It’s not hard to define the theory of Reiss as source oriented, since she’s still in search of an equivalence of some sort, whereas, the theory of Vermeer proposes a complete independency from the source. How come they both are classified as ‘functional theorists’ then? It’s obvious that their approaches towards ‘equivalence’ differ. Reiss still discusses the transmission of a part of the source text (as a partial equivalence proponent), whereas, Vermeer puts forward his approach of ‘acquiring adequacy through obeying the skopos’ and proposes the possibility of ‘full transmission’ in these terms. To him, one-to-one type of correspondence, or such techniques as translating according to text-type, constitute solely a few of the many possible ways.
Interrelated with their differing approaches towards ‘functional equivalence’, the theories of Reiss and Vermeer are target-oriented to different extents. Reiss legitimates the usage of a different text type while ‘reverbalizing’ the source text only if the target culture’s ‘habits of textualization’ differ form that of the source (Reiss 1971: 165). It’s true that her proposing the translator various options- translation according to sense and meaning, translating by identification, adoptive translating- is a sign of her acknowledging the legitimacy of more than one target-texts. However, multiplying the Reiss’s options, the skopos theory of Vermeer not only breaks the limits brought by source-orientedness (which still exists in Reiss), but also gains the target text an autonomous character, bestowing the target-text with its own textual potentials. It’s no longer a product of secondary communication as in Reiss’s theory, instead, it carries its own communicative purposes other than those of the source text. In this way, Vermeer’s theory carries the ‘function’ of Reiss one step further in both positioning the translator as an expert of decisions and defining the target text as a text of its own.
Taking the very end of Reiss’s article as his point of departure- in the part titled as ‘special cases’ in which she admits the possibility of the lack of functional equivalence- Vermeer builds a whole theory on ‘relativizing the traditional viewpoint’ (Vermeer 1989: 185). It’s a grand scheme that he draws. First he passes beyond the previous conceptions of translation through the defining the act neither as a linguistic phenomena nor as a form of communication. As implied in how he refers translation to-that is ‘translational action’, translation is taken as a form of human behavior that has a specific purpose and brings about an end-product. In this `purpose` point, Reiss and Vermeer’s theory intersect. It’s true that Reiss proposes only a limited number of purposes all of which are relatively source oriented, whereas,to Vermeer all purposes are legitimite (as long as they support the translational action and the endproduct), which increases the possible number of target texts coming out of a single source text. But the point they end up with in referring to the concep to of ‘purpose’ are rather similar: to introduce translation as a conscious activity. Vermeer’s determining a skopos and Reiss’s translational stages of ‘analysis&reverbalization’ both serve for this. On the one hand there are the classifications of Reiss (intentional vs unintentional changes, 4 different text-types, 3 modes of translating etc) , and on the other, there’s the well-developed terminology of Vermeer (skopos,commission,translatum,adequacy,expert). Don’t they both serve for a scientific (or professional one may call it) conception of translation? Through referring such schematisms, aren’t they legitimizing the concept of translation, the act of the translator and their studies as translation scholars with one shot?
Supposedly, in both theories there’s a search for a general theory of translation, which could be inferred from the meticulous methodologies they resort to . In one, it’s the text type of the source that directs the act of translation, in the other, it’s the skopos that takes this responsibility. In both, the endproduct of the action is valued (though it’s more so in Vermeer’s theory), which reveals that the absolute hegemonia of the source is gradually becoming a myth. And how to achieve a general theory of translation through the insistently interfering concept of ‘cultural context’ is gradually becoming an inextricable mystery.
REFERENCES
Reiss, Katharina
1971"Type, Kind and Individuality of Text"
Vermeer, Hans J.
1989"Skopos and Commission in Translational Action"
9 Ekim 2009 Cuma
Nida`s Principles of Correspondence
As we’ve also discussed in class last Monday, no viewpoint or way of thinking has directly come down to earth. Especially when it comes to the analysis of some certain theoretical development, sequential thinking is necessary. This is how one can easily derive the fundaments of functional theories out of Nida’s principles of corresponding two distinct cultural and lingual systems.
Nida initiates determining his principles of correspondance with a reference to the three basic constituents of communication theory: sender, message and receiver. Though he focuses on, and prescribes, only one type of translation in an extensive manner, from the beginning of his essay, Nida acknowledges the existence of various types of translations varying in between the source and target. And these three variables, as he states, are the main rationals behind the existence of these different types.
Throughout his essay, Nida uses these three terms of sender, message and receiver interrelatedly. Explicating what message is, he touches on how a single message may arise different conceptions according to the social and cultural dynamics surrounding the receiver. As for the third constituent, the sender, his particular purpose is also indicated as a strong determiner. Although Nida assigns the particular purpose of the sender as ‘recreating and transmitting the same effect’- in other words hestipulates an identification with the authorial position adopting all authorial intentions- he at least acknowledges the possibility of adopting a different purpose.[1] It’s true that according to his proposal, departing from authorial intentions could threaten the transmission of the ‘same effect’. But, I suppose, stating the possibility of such a departure from the authorial intention, Nida drags the debates on translational concerns one step further.
The main duality on which Nida builds his theory is that of form and effect. Classifying two main types of correspondence as formal and dynamic, Nida explicitly states the impossibility of achieving a translation that would embrace both. Presumably, as a Bible translator, making a choice among the two hasn’t constructed a huge challenge for him. Even in such cases in which the translator carries great structural worries- here Nida gives the example of translating poetry in which form and content proceed hand in hand- effect needs to be taken as the most fundamental factor. It’s rather legitimate for Nida to translate Homeric epic in the form of prose, for instance. Henceforth, this strong emphasis on ‘effect’ is another significance of Nida’s theory bringing forth both its defects and contributions.
Firstly, within the article, there are references to Nida’s concern of a ‘good’ translation. It’s for sure that, here, this good eventually meets with the achievement of the closest effect. In other words, Nida defines the transmission of the effect, or ‘impact’ he calls it in some places, as the primal criteria of evaluating ‘good’ translation. On the one hand, this seems to be a revolution also, since there’s the indication of a search for something concrete for evaluating the translation product. On the other, the concreteness of this criteria is rather debatable. Although throughout the article Nida mentions about this ‘effect’ whose transmission is crucial, and quotes other scholars that agree with this argument of his, he can’t somehow define this existence in concrete terms. He enumerates such tecnhiques of rendering it (such as naturalizing the language/expressions, domesticatd arrangement in style, adopting the stylistic deviations of the source author to the target language etc), he resorts to textual exemplifications that he finds appropriate and inappropriate, he even classifies the lingual and cultural systems according to the probability of the transmitting the effect, but the term ‘effect’ still lacks a definition. It still remains too ambiguous a term to be adopted as a criteria of evaluating the translation product.
As for the contributions of these discussions on effect in translation theory, Nida’s definition of translation as an encoding-decoding process (in order to achieve the closest effect) passes beyond the linguistic concerns. As Nida proposes, translation practice is actualized on both lingual and cultural bases. And it is the existence of the cultural base, that poses the main challenge for the translator. Words and expressions are culturally contextualized in the source text ( Here, one of Nida’s effective examples is that onomatopoeic expressions are totally inappropriate in the African system whereas they are the main means of communication in Waiwai). The path to achieve the effect passes through decontextualizing the message and locating it in target language through recontextualizing it. At this point, Nida’s statement for translating poetry gains relevance for all sorts of translation I guess, translation has never been a mechanical activity, it is ‘re-creation’, not a ‘reproduction’ (Nida 1964: 134).
Although this article of Nida doesn’t reveal a sharp departure from the ‘sacred’ and textual concerns of the prior scholars, the inclusion of cultural and contextual concerns within translation scene is a significant attempt. His domesticating approach that favors naturalizing translations doesn’t seem to be a fresh idea, however, such points he touches on as translator’s purpose and the nature of the message make his approach the precursor of functional theories to some extent. His intention of finding an evaluative criteria for translation product is also a reminder of contemporary translation theory. In this way, reading Nida after locating him in the bigger picture of the development of translation theory increases the significance of both the ‘principles’ that construct his theory in particular, and his theory in general.
[1] Ref. : ‘It is assumed that the translator has purposes generally similar to, or at least compatible with, those of the original author, but this is not necessarily so’. (Nida 1964: 127)
Nida initiates determining his principles of correspondance with a reference to the three basic constituents of communication theory: sender, message and receiver. Though he focuses on, and prescribes, only one type of translation in an extensive manner, from the beginning of his essay, Nida acknowledges the existence of various types of translations varying in between the source and target. And these three variables, as he states, are the main rationals behind the existence of these different types.
Throughout his essay, Nida uses these three terms of sender, message and receiver interrelatedly. Explicating what message is, he touches on how a single message may arise different conceptions according to the social and cultural dynamics surrounding the receiver. As for the third constituent, the sender, his particular purpose is also indicated as a strong determiner. Although Nida assigns the particular purpose of the sender as ‘recreating and transmitting the same effect’- in other words hestipulates an identification with the authorial position adopting all authorial intentions- he at least acknowledges the possibility of adopting a different purpose.[1] It’s true that according to his proposal, departing from authorial intentions could threaten the transmission of the ‘same effect’. But, I suppose, stating the possibility of such a departure from the authorial intention, Nida drags the debates on translational concerns one step further.
The main duality on which Nida builds his theory is that of form and effect. Classifying two main types of correspondence as formal and dynamic, Nida explicitly states the impossibility of achieving a translation that would embrace both. Presumably, as a Bible translator, making a choice among the two hasn’t constructed a huge challenge for him. Even in such cases in which the translator carries great structural worries- here Nida gives the example of translating poetry in which form and content proceed hand in hand- effect needs to be taken as the most fundamental factor. It’s rather legitimate for Nida to translate Homeric epic in the form of prose, for instance. Henceforth, this strong emphasis on ‘effect’ is another significance of Nida’s theory bringing forth both its defects and contributions.
Firstly, within the article, there are references to Nida’s concern of a ‘good’ translation. It’s for sure that, here, this good eventually meets with the achievement of the closest effect. In other words, Nida defines the transmission of the effect, or ‘impact’ he calls it in some places, as the primal criteria of evaluating ‘good’ translation. On the one hand, this seems to be a revolution also, since there’s the indication of a search for something concrete for evaluating the translation product. On the other, the concreteness of this criteria is rather debatable. Although throughout the article Nida mentions about this ‘effect’ whose transmission is crucial, and quotes other scholars that agree with this argument of his, he can’t somehow define this existence in concrete terms. He enumerates such tecnhiques of rendering it (such as naturalizing the language/expressions, domesticatd arrangement in style, adopting the stylistic deviations of the source author to the target language etc), he resorts to textual exemplifications that he finds appropriate and inappropriate, he even classifies the lingual and cultural systems according to the probability of the transmitting the effect, but the term ‘effect’ still lacks a definition. It still remains too ambiguous a term to be adopted as a criteria of evaluating the translation product.
As for the contributions of these discussions on effect in translation theory, Nida’s definition of translation as an encoding-decoding process (in order to achieve the closest effect) passes beyond the linguistic concerns. As Nida proposes, translation practice is actualized on both lingual and cultural bases. And it is the existence of the cultural base, that poses the main challenge for the translator. Words and expressions are culturally contextualized in the source text ( Here, one of Nida’s effective examples is that onomatopoeic expressions are totally inappropriate in the African system whereas they are the main means of communication in Waiwai). The path to achieve the effect passes through decontextualizing the message and locating it in target language through recontextualizing it. At this point, Nida’s statement for translating poetry gains relevance for all sorts of translation I guess, translation has never been a mechanical activity, it is ‘re-creation’, not a ‘reproduction’ (Nida 1964: 134).
Although this article of Nida doesn’t reveal a sharp departure from the ‘sacred’ and textual concerns of the prior scholars, the inclusion of cultural and contextual concerns within translation scene is a significant attempt. His domesticating approach that favors naturalizing translations doesn’t seem to be a fresh idea, however, such points he touches on as translator’s purpose and the nature of the message make his approach the precursor of functional theories to some extent. His intention of finding an evaluative criteria for translation product is also a reminder of contemporary translation theory. In this way, reading Nida after locating him in the bigger picture of the development of translation theory increases the significance of both the ‘principles’ that construct his theory in particular, and his theory in general.
[1] Ref. : ‘It is assumed that the translator has purposes generally similar to, or at least compatible with, those of the original author, but this is not necessarily so’. (Nida 1964: 127)
7 Ekim 2009 Çarşamba
WHERE TO BEGIN ?
Revealing its paradoxical nature from the first sight thanks to its name that brings the concepts of `art`(or `craft` one may call it) and `science` together, translation studies has set off its journey as a discipline hand in hand with its famous dualities. Although the tenacious existence of these binary oppositons was considered among the main challenges before the disciplinization of the field at first, today, the modern perspective bestows the translation scholar with an approach that embraces these dualities as the enriching elements of the concept of translation. Surely, such a wide perspective directs the scholar towards studies that locate certain concepts within their historical contexts and these studies often result in redefinitons of the `well-known` keywords. Eventually, new conceptions towards the history of translation studies have started to evolve.
Systematic vs unsystematic theories
Most of the translation studies readers locate the theories of Dolet, Tytler, Dryden and Schleiermacher right after some certain ancient names. It feels as if starting the word with the Tower of Babel, then putting a few mentionings about the ancient approaches and briefly touching on these more recent scholars has become the ritual of the editors before starting the real ceremony. Not surprisingly, the theories of these scholars of translation history have never been under as much focus as the theories of the 20th century, rather, they seem to be posited in those first pages just to display the fact that the discipline has laid its roots somewhere back in those days. It wasn`t until recently that the contemporary scholar has felt the necessity of going back there both to strenghten the foundations of the discipline and to bridge its past and the present.
From today’s perspective, the main reason of the huge gap between the early and late theorists seems to be the prescriptive vs descriptive debates on translation theory. Even though there was not such a criteria that the early theorists could evaluate their studies with and the academic preference of ‘explicating instead of guiding’ is a relatively modern one, mostly these early theorists` way of creating translational rules in the idealistic level has been subjected to criticism. Fortunately, after the realization of the fact that translation history needs to embrace both prescriptivity and descriptivity since the latter owes its birth and rise to the former, these historical writings on translation are opened to reevaluation.
When we have a closer look at the writings of Dolet, Dryden, Tytler and Schleiermacher with today`s criteria of ‘positing within the historical context’, we actually see that the roots of many modern concerns of translation studies reside within these documents. Firstly, it needs to be acknowledged that these men belong to different geographies and eras. When we are able to see Dolet as a 16th century humanist, Dryden as a 17th century poet, Tytler as an 18th century Enlightenment philosopher and Schleiermacher as a 19th century German Romantic, these questions inevitably arises in our minds: How could these men fall into the same dispute of free vs faithfull translation? What if these concepts differ in their definitions? Dolet concerns translating Rabelais whereas most of Dryden’s concerns are inclined towards translating poetry; Tytler reflects his perfectionist Enlightenment ideal of ‘meeting both ends’ instead of referring to a choice, whereas Schleiermacher lays the foundations of what Venuti would later call ‘foreignization’ and ‘domestication’ for the construction of a German canon as mentioned in the class. It’s true that in all, the duality of faithfullness and freedom exists, but reading between the lines leads one to different definitions of these concepts. A closer look also works for diminishing the gap between the premodern and modern texts on translational method. One could derive the concept of ‘effect’ from Dryden’t text, or Tytler’s meeting both ends could be taken as an attempt of abolishing the duality. Whereas, Schleiermacher’s text, as the most systematic and well-problematizing of all, produces the roots for not only the functional approaches of ‘translating according to a text-type’, but also such modern issues of ‘contextualization’ and ‘source author-target reader’ relationship.
When read sequentially, these texts also reveal the development of systematic theoritisation of translation phenomena from Dryden’s three parted scheme to Schleiermacher’s extensively defined terms. Still, it’s apparent that these systematizations aim to provide a guide for the translator, in other words, there’s not an empirical textual level regarding the ‘existing’ product of translation practice in these texts. Besides, the explications of their classifications can’t pass beyond the ‘intention’ level at times. Tytler offers the translator to ‘adopt the very soul of the author’ and ‘speak through his own organs’ in order to achieve the type of transcendental perfection he proposes, yet he doesn’t clarify how exactly to do that. Similarly, Dryden mentions about an ‘original Muse’ that hinders the full rendering of the source poem. Obviously, the youngest of all, Schleiermacher is the one that attempts to cover such defects of his elders. Following a relatively systematic methodology which begins with classifying translating for commerce and for scholarly aims (&art). Focusing on the latter, Schleiermacher first problematizes language’s power on cognition, then extensively discusses how to correspond the two distinct types of language that possibly lead to two distinct types of cognition. As he states, there’s no mid-way that would meet both ends, therefore the translator would either bring the source author to the target reader, or vice versa. Explicating both ways in detail, Schleiermacher favors the latter approach we would later name as ‘foreignization`. At this point, he lays the roots of still debated issues such as translation’s role in enhancing the langugage, transmitting the historical particularities within language and the respect for the particular as opposed to general . Bearing all these facts in mind, we could say that these writings also reveal the development of theoretical systematization within translation history, though none are at the level of recent theories and are still regarded as ‘primitive’ compared to their proceeders.
Lefevere’s study as an alternative research on the redefiniton of translation history
In her article titled “The History ofTranslation: Recurring Patterns & Research Issues”, Mona Baker explicates an exemplary approach for a modern retrospection of the translation phenomena: “...we still know very little about the history of our profession, that what we know of it indicates that its profile has varied tremendously from one era to another, and- equally important- that the activities of translation and interpreting have taken such a wide variety of forms and have occured in such a multitude of contexts over the years that we are obliged to look at the historical facts before we can even begin to develop theoretical accounts for this complex phenomenon.” (Baker 2002: 14)
These words of Baker perfectly correlate with Lefevere’s introduction to his article “Chinese and Western Thinking on Translation” which basicly tells that ‘Shifts and changes in the technique of translating did not occur at random’ and historicizing translation necessitates the explication of the dynamics around these shifts. The exemplifications from the texts of Dolet,Dryden, Tytler and Schleiermacher have also revealed that it’s important to search for the traces of the bridge between the past and the present. Reading the disputes that are under the same classification- as the threatisies of those theoreticians have always been classified under the same title ‘primitive and prescriptive’- we’ve seen both how each has contextualized those `same` concepts differently and the gradual evolution of ‘systematical translation theory’.
Taking a more extensive era and two totally different geographies as his subject of comparison, Lefevere’s study serves for the acquisition a same type of approach towards translation history. Setting off from the most eminent dualities of the era, ‘Self – the Other’ and ‘West- East’, he displays the simultaneous development of translation in the Western and Chinese culture towards different directions. As his findings reveal, East has adopted a more stable, consistent attitude towards translation. There hasn’t been a transition from oral tradition to the textual tradition for long time, therefore it has continued it’s ‘functionally thinking rhetoric’ - an approach favoring the reader and sees source as insignificant. Since each translation becomes a source, Chinese tradition is beyond the dualism of faithfullness and freedom. In contrast, though set off from the same functional oral tradition of ‘interpreting’, West has displayed a more dynamic historical development in terms of translational practice. First with the bilingual development of the culture, then with Christianity, ‘word’ has been adopted as the translation unit and in contrast with Eastern tradition’s ‘functionally thinking rhetoric’, West has insistently stayed within the boundaries of the source and approached translation as ‘linguistic transcoding’. In this way, Lefevere explains the development of a ‘retranslation’ ritual and the source vs target disputes Western tradition has fallen into.
By all means, the scheme Lefevere draws for an alternative historicism of translation phenomena is a gigantic one. Squeezing the millennial development of two distinct cultures’ into 12 pages is truely a matter of appreciation. However, this exposes his text to criticisms on misrepresentations in terms of both cultures. Firstly, he doesn’t define the West to which he subjects his comparison. Secondly, backing up the stability of the translational tradition in Chinese culture with its homogenious structure is rather confusing. From such an article, the reader acquires a general view of the development in both cultures, which is great. Yet, apparently, the rationals behind the ‘functionally thinking rhetoric’ of the East and the ‘linguistic transcoding’ of the West need some deeper explications.
For sure, one conclusion arrived by Lefevere`s article is crucial in defining the current position of the field. Afterall, ‘translation spans a field immeasurably wider than that which involves the mere technical activity’ (Lefevere 1998: 24), therefore translation history is in need of conceptual definitions and redefinitions considering the cultural dynamics surrounding the field’s development.
Concluding Remarks
As seen in this two parted essay, the development of translation studies- in both methodological and conceptual matters- is expected to be located within the larger picture. The perspectival shifts from the ancient orators to Bible translators, from linguistic theories to cultural turn and the power turn have never occured randomly. The discipline’s internal dynamics have always been in interaction with the historical and cultural surroundings. Therefore it’s necessary to look back there wider (Am I being too prescriptive here??) since the past never gives up tagging along the present.
References
Baker, Mona
“The History of Translation: Recurring Patterns & Research Issues,” translations: (re)shaping of literature and culture (ed.) Saliha Paker. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press, pp. 5-14.
Lefevere, Andre
“Chinese and Western Thinking on Translation”, Constructing Cultures (ed.) Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere, pp. 12-24.
Robinson, Douglas
“Etienne Dolet “, Western Translation Theory, pp. 95-96.
“John Dryden”, Western Translation Theory, pp. 171-175.
“Alexander Fraser Tytler”, Western Translation Theory, pp. 208-212.
“Friedrich Schleiermacher”, Western Translation Theory, pp. 225-238.
Systematic vs unsystematic theories
Most of the translation studies readers locate the theories of Dolet, Tytler, Dryden and Schleiermacher right after some certain ancient names. It feels as if starting the word with the Tower of Babel, then putting a few mentionings about the ancient approaches and briefly touching on these more recent scholars has become the ritual of the editors before starting the real ceremony. Not surprisingly, the theories of these scholars of translation history have never been under as much focus as the theories of the 20th century, rather, they seem to be posited in those first pages just to display the fact that the discipline has laid its roots somewhere back in those days. It wasn`t until recently that the contemporary scholar has felt the necessity of going back there both to strenghten the foundations of the discipline and to bridge its past and the present.
From today’s perspective, the main reason of the huge gap between the early and late theorists seems to be the prescriptive vs descriptive debates on translation theory. Even though there was not such a criteria that the early theorists could evaluate their studies with and the academic preference of ‘explicating instead of guiding’ is a relatively modern one, mostly these early theorists` way of creating translational rules in the idealistic level has been subjected to criticism. Fortunately, after the realization of the fact that translation history needs to embrace both prescriptivity and descriptivity since the latter owes its birth and rise to the former, these historical writings on translation are opened to reevaluation.
When we have a closer look at the writings of Dolet, Dryden, Tytler and Schleiermacher with today`s criteria of ‘positing within the historical context’, we actually see that the roots of many modern concerns of translation studies reside within these documents. Firstly, it needs to be acknowledged that these men belong to different geographies and eras. When we are able to see Dolet as a 16th century humanist, Dryden as a 17th century poet, Tytler as an 18th century Enlightenment philosopher and Schleiermacher as a 19th century German Romantic, these questions inevitably arises in our minds: How could these men fall into the same dispute of free vs faithfull translation? What if these concepts differ in their definitions? Dolet concerns translating Rabelais whereas most of Dryden’s concerns are inclined towards translating poetry; Tytler reflects his perfectionist Enlightenment ideal of ‘meeting both ends’ instead of referring to a choice, whereas Schleiermacher lays the foundations of what Venuti would later call ‘foreignization’ and ‘domestication’ for the construction of a German canon as mentioned in the class. It’s true that in all, the duality of faithfullness and freedom exists, but reading between the lines leads one to different definitions of these concepts. A closer look also works for diminishing the gap between the premodern and modern texts on translational method. One could derive the concept of ‘effect’ from Dryden’t text, or Tytler’s meeting both ends could be taken as an attempt of abolishing the duality. Whereas, Schleiermacher’s text, as the most systematic and well-problematizing of all, produces the roots for not only the functional approaches of ‘translating according to a text-type’, but also such modern issues of ‘contextualization’ and ‘source author-target reader’ relationship.
When read sequentially, these texts also reveal the development of systematic theoritisation of translation phenomena from Dryden’s three parted scheme to Schleiermacher’s extensively defined terms. Still, it’s apparent that these systematizations aim to provide a guide for the translator, in other words, there’s not an empirical textual level regarding the ‘existing’ product of translation practice in these texts. Besides, the explications of their classifications can’t pass beyond the ‘intention’ level at times. Tytler offers the translator to ‘adopt the very soul of the author’ and ‘speak through his own organs’ in order to achieve the type of transcendental perfection he proposes, yet he doesn’t clarify how exactly to do that. Similarly, Dryden mentions about an ‘original Muse’ that hinders the full rendering of the source poem. Obviously, the youngest of all, Schleiermacher is the one that attempts to cover such defects of his elders. Following a relatively systematic methodology which begins with classifying translating for commerce and for scholarly aims (&art). Focusing on the latter, Schleiermacher first problematizes language’s power on cognition, then extensively discusses how to correspond the two distinct types of language that possibly lead to two distinct types of cognition. As he states, there’s no mid-way that would meet both ends, therefore the translator would either bring the source author to the target reader, or vice versa. Explicating both ways in detail, Schleiermacher favors the latter approach we would later name as ‘foreignization`. At this point, he lays the roots of still debated issues such as translation’s role in enhancing the langugage, transmitting the historical particularities within language and the respect for the particular as opposed to general . Bearing all these facts in mind, we could say that these writings also reveal the development of theoretical systematization within translation history, though none are at the level of recent theories and are still regarded as ‘primitive’ compared to their proceeders.
Lefevere’s study as an alternative research on the redefiniton of translation history
In her article titled “The History ofTranslation: Recurring Patterns & Research Issues”, Mona Baker explicates an exemplary approach for a modern retrospection of the translation phenomena: “...we still know very little about the history of our profession, that what we know of it indicates that its profile has varied tremendously from one era to another, and- equally important- that the activities of translation and interpreting have taken such a wide variety of forms and have occured in such a multitude of contexts over the years that we are obliged to look at the historical facts before we can even begin to develop theoretical accounts for this complex phenomenon.” (Baker 2002: 14)
These words of Baker perfectly correlate with Lefevere’s introduction to his article “Chinese and Western Thinking on Translation” which basicly tells that ‘Shifts and changes in the technique of translating did not occur at random’ and historicizing translation necessitates the explication of the dynamics around these shifts. The exemplifications from the texts of Dolet,Dryden, Tytler and Schleiermacher have also revealed that it’s important to search for the traces of the bridge between the past and the present. Reading the disputes that are under the same classification- as the threatisies of those theoreticians have always been classified under the same title ‘primitive and prescriptive’- we’ve seen both how each has contextualized those `same` concepts differently and the gradual evolution of ‘systematical translation theory’.
Taking a more extensive era and two totally different geographies as his subject of comparison, Lefevere’s study serves for the acquisition a same type of approach towards translation history. Setting off from the most eminent dualities of the era, ‘Self – the Other’ and ‘West- East’, he displays the simultaneous development of translation in the Western and Chinese culture towards different directions. As his findings reveal, East has adopted a more stable, consistent attitude towards translation. There hasn’t been a transition from oral tradition to the textual tradition for long time, therefore it has continued it’s ‘functionally thinking rhetoric’ - an approach favoring the reader and sees source as insignificant. Since each translation becomes a source, Chinese tradition is beyond the dualism of faithfullness and freedom. In contrast, though set off from the same functional oral tradition of ‘interpreting’, West has displayed a more dynamic historical development in terms of translational practice. First with the bilingual development of the culture, then with Christianity, ‘word’ has been adopted as the translation unit and in contrast with Eastern tradition’s ‘functionally thinking rhetoric’, West has insistently stayed within the boundaries of the source and approached translation as ‘linguistic transcoding’. In this way, Lefevere explains the development of a ‘retranslation’ ritual and the source vs target disputes Western tradition has fallen into.
By all means, the scheme Lefevere draws for an alternative historicism of translation phenomena is a gigantic one. Squeezing the millennial development of two distinct cultures’ into 12 pages is truely a matter of appreciation. However, this exposes his text to criticisms on misrepresentations in terms of both cultures. Firstly, he doesn’t define the West to which he subjects his comparison. Secondly, backing up the stability of the translational tradition in Chinese culture with its homogenious structure is rather confusing. From such an article, the reader acquires a general view of the development in both cultures, which is great. Yet, apparently, the rationals behind the ‘functionally thinking rhetoric’ of the East and the ‘linguistic transcoding’ of the West need some deeper explications.
For sure, one conclusion arrived by Lefevere`s article is crucial in defining the current position of the field. Afterall, ‘translation spans a field immeasurably wider than that which involves the mere technical activity’ (Lefevere 1998: 24), therefore translation history is in need of conceptual definitions and redefinitions considering the cultural dynamics surrounding the field’s development.
Concluding Remarks
As seen in this two parted essay, the development of translation studies- in both methodological and conceptual matters- is expected to be located within the larger picture. The perspectival shifts from the ancient orators to Bible translators, from linguistic theories to cultural turn and the power turn have never occured randomly. The discipline’s internal dynamics have always been in interaction with the historical and cultural surroundings. Therefore it’s necessary to look back there wider (Am I being too prescriptive here??) since the past never gives up tagging along the present.
References
Baker, Mona
“The History of Translation: Recurring Patterns & Research Issues,” translations: (re)shaping of literature and culture (ed.) Saliha Paker. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press, pp. 5-14.
Lefevere, Andre
“Chinese and Western Thinking on Translation”, Constructing Cultures (ed.) Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere, pp. 12-24.
Robinson, Douglas
“Etienne Dolet “, Western Translation Theory, pp. 95-96.
“John Dryden”, Western Translation Theory, pp. 171-175.
“Alexander Fraser Tytler”, Western Translation Theory, pp. 208-212.
“Friedrich Schleiermacher”, Western Translation Theory, pp. 225-238.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)