Translation Theories Exemplified
from Cicero to Pierre Bourdieu
Arabic-English
A Coursebook on Translation
Dr Ali Almanna 2013
1
Chapter 1: Historical Background
It is not necessary for everyone to know translation theory in order to
translate the text at hand. However, acquiring a solid foundation in
translation theory will enable you to produce a text reflecting the author’s
intention, maintaining the text-type focus and living up to the target-
reader’s expectations.
In this chapter, we will introduce, in brief, the most important translation
theories that have held sway on the development of translation studies. In
his oft-cited book After Babel, George Steiner (1975/1998) divides the
literature on translation theories into four periods which extend from
Cicero and Horace until currently prevailing views. These four periods,
however, overlap to a certain degree and are not chronologically well-
structured. These stages, therefore, with slight modification, will be
divided in this chapter into five periods:
1- Translation Theories in Antiquity;
2- Translation Theories in the Middle Ages;
3- Translation Theories in Renaissance;
4- Translation Theories in Modern Times; and
5- Contemporary Translation Theories
1. Translation Theories in Antiquity
The Birth: Cicero, Horace & St. Jerome
In the western world, translation, in particular literary translation, can be
traced back to 'the age of Romans' . Although translation, at that time,
played a significant role in reflecting Greek literature and philosophy in
Latin, the attempts in translation were an act of submission that caused
awkward lexical Graecisms to enter into the translations. It was not long
before the Romans viewed translation from a different perspective; it
meant for them “transformation in order to mold the foreign into the
linguistic structures of one’s own culture” without tying themselves up
with the lexical or syntactic features of the source language (SL). Such a
fundamental change towards showing respect to the linguistic system of
the target language (TL) and not violating it with foreign lexis and hybrid
stylistic idiosyncrasies can be elicited from Cicero’s attitude regarding
translation. Cicero mentions that:
He translates the ideas, their forms, or as one might say, their shapes;
however, he translate them into a language that is in tune with our
conventions of usage. Therefore, I did not have to make a word-for-word
translation but rather a translation that reflects the general stylistic
features and the meaning of foreign words.
2
Cicero and Horace (first century BCE) were the first theorists who made
a distinction between word-for-word translation and sense-for-sense
translation. Their comments on translation practice influenced the
following generations of translation down to the twentieth century.
Later, St. Jerome adopted Cicero and Horace’s position on the occasion
of his Latin translation of the Greek Septuagaint:
Now I not only admit but freely announce that in translating from Greek-
except of course in the case of the Holy Scripture, where even the syntax
contains a mystery- I render not word-for-word, but sense-for-sense.
Although his translation was not an excellent one, it is still the official
Latin translation of the Bible. His “approach to translating the Greek
Septuagint Bible into Latin would affect later translations of the
scriptures”
2. Translation Theories in the Middle Ages
In Europe, the Middle Ages fall roughly between late 5th century and the
15th century A.D. Since Cicero and Horace (c. 1st century BCE), St.
Jerome (mid-4th century CE), and continuing on until the 9th century CE,
discussion about translation had focused on whether it be carried out
word-for-word or sense-for-sense as well as the position of the TT, in
terms of its inferiority or superiority to the ST.
The Irish theologian and philosopher John Scotus Eriugena made a
distinction between the translator of the text and its expositor.
Abbasid Period (750-1250)
During the Islamic conquests and the expansion of the Islamic Empire,
Arabs began looking into the riches of their great scholarly tradition. The
translation movement, which had been inactive in the Arab world,
underwent dramatic changes during the Abbasid period in which it passed
through two phases. The first of which occurred during the reign of the
second Caliph, Abu Ja'far al-Mansur, who commissioned a number of
translations and set up a translation chamber. Among the most famous
translators of this phase are Ibn al-Batrīq and Ibn al-Muqaffa'. They
translated books from Persian and Greek literature.
The second phase was during the reign of the seventh Caliph, al-Ma’mūn,
who built in Baghdad 'Bait al-Hikma' (The House of Wisdom). It was the
greatest institute of translation at that time, which also became the most
celebrated centre of translation in Arab History. No doubt the credit of
founding the first organized, large-scale translation institute in history
3
goes to the Abbasids starting during the Umayyad Dynasty and reaching
its apex during the reign of the Abbasids.
Al-Safadi stated that there were two methods of translation during al-
Ma’mun’s reign: 1) word by word; and 2) transferring the whole meaning
of the sentence into mind. The first method was adopted by Yūhana Ibn
al-Batrīq, Ibn Na'ima al-Himsi, and others who would look up the
meaning of each Greek word to find its equivalent in Arabic and then
moved on to the following word until they had the whole text translated.
Hunayn Ibn Ishāq and al-Jawahiri adopted the second method wherein
they set down the transferred materials in fluent Arabic without violating
the majesty of the TL.
Al-Safadī criticized the first method for two reasons:
1) the relative difficulty in finding an equivalent Arabic word for each
Greek counterpart, resulting in the entering of foreign words into
Arabic.
2) while the two languages are not only syntactically different, they
differ in their way of using figures of speech.
Baker argues that the second method prioritizes “the requirement of
the target language and the target reader from outset”. She adds that
“readability and accessibility” were stressed “in a way which suggests
that translations were conceived as having a didactic function”.
A number of theoretical issues arose as well, such as whether translation
of certain text types was overall possible, whether translated texts in
general offered a reliable source of information, and the effect of
interference from Greek and Syriac on the structure of Arabic. For
example, Al-Jahiz in his book ( ﻛﺘﺎب اﻟﺤﯿﻮانBook of Animals), he
considered translation inferior to the original translation and it remains
secondary to the original.
Al-Jahiz considered translation inferior to the original- translation, as he
argued, “can never attain the sublime heights of philosopher’s wisdom. It
cannot get to the essence of this wisdom. It remains secondary to the
original.
Among many translation-related issues that al-Jāhiz touched on in Book
of Animals is translator competency. He argued that the translator should
not only have an excellent command of both the SL and the TL, but he
should have a solid foundation in the structure of language, be familiar
with the people’s habits and customs, and their ways of understanding
one another (i.e., their culture). He also drew attention to the importance
of the translator’s familiarity/unfamiliarity with the original text and its
4
subject matter. He argued when the field of discourse becomes more
complex and narrow in scope, and the number of specialists in the field
dwindles, it becomes more arduous on the translator, which in turn
increases the possibility of error.
Further, in his comments on translating poetry, al-Jāhidh argued that the
TT could not be, at any rate, an equivalent to the ST both semantically
and aesthetically unless the translator is “genius, innovator and qualified”
In the late 10th/early 11th century, the Islamic Empire experienced a long
period of gradual disintegration. However, they provided the world with
“impetus for the development of all branches of knowledge in the West,
including natural sciences and philosophy, could not have taken place had
it not been for the intense programme of translation carried out under the
Abbasids”.
Pre-renaissance: Dante (1265-1321) & Martin Luther (1483-1546)
Three centuries later, the Italian poet, Dante, who had written most of his
poetry in vernacular rather than in formal Latin. He translated from his
mother tongue into Latin, thus his writing was not elegant or controllable.
In defence of the vernacular language, he added that it would be “an
intelligent servant” as it would show obedience to his/her user. Obedience
of language, as he described it, “must be sweet, and not bitter; entirely
under command, and not spontaneous; and it must be limited and not
unbounded”.
In the late 15th century and 16th century, Martin Luther (1483-1546
CE), who was one of the most notable theologians in Christian history
and responsible for Reformation, shifted the focus of attention towards
the TT and its intended reader. Like Dante, he proclaimed that in order to
produce a good translation, one needs to find out how ordinary people in
the TL communicate such that their voice and style of speech can emerge
through translation. He translated the New Testament into German,
giving ordinary lay people the opportunity to read God’s word for
themselves and, for the first time ever, Bibles were distributed among the
German people. Although this was one of the brightest moments in Bible
history, it was a dark time of depression in Luther’s life. Luther advised
the would-be translator to use a vernacular proverb or expression if it
fitted in with the New Testament. In an open letter on translating, Luther
stated:
Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the
common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language,
by the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will
understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.
5
Luther drew attention to the importance of the relationship between style
and meaning. He argued that “in speech the meaning and subject matter
must be considered, not the grammar, for the grammar shall not rule over
the meaning”.
Infusing the Bible with the language of ordinary people annoyed the
Roman Catholic Church. However, Luther's views on translation
influenced greatly numerous translations of the Bible not only in Western
Europe, but in other parts of the world.
3. Translation Theories in Renaissance
Sixteenth Century: Etienne Dolet (1509-1546) & William Tyndale
(1494-1536)
The 16th century witnessed the emergence of ‘Reformation’ against the
domination of church authorities over all other social classes. This
movement spread all over Europe and influenced the thinking of the
people. This movement led the church authorities to forbid the lay people
to read Bible in their native language on the one hand, and to the
execution of two famous translators, on the other. The first was the
French humanist Etienne Dolet (1509-1546) who was tortured first and
then burned at the stake in Paris. The second translator who was executed
was William Tyndale (1494-1536) who was strangled and then burnt in
the city of Antwerp in 1536.
Etienne Dolet was found a heretic for his mistranslation of one of Plato’s
dialogues, The phrase “rien du tout” (nothing at all) illustrated to the
Church his disbelief in immortality ultimately leading to his
aforementioned execution. One of the earliest attempts to establish a set
of fundamental translation principles was made by Etienne Dolet.
In his essay ‘The Way to Translate well from one Language into
Another’, Dolet concluded that:
1- the translator must understand perfectly the content and intention of
the author;
2- the translator should have an excellent command in both languages: SL
and TL;
3- the translator should avoid word-for-word renderings;
4- the translator should avoid the uncommon use of archaic words and
expressions, but rather should focus on the common usage of the
language; and
5- the translator should devote his attention to the rhetorical devices.
Dolet tried to strike a balance between the SL and TL. The translator,
according to Dolet’s principals, “is far more than a competent linguist,
and translation involves both a scholarly and sensitive appraisal of the SL
text and an awareness of the place the translation is intended to occupy in
6
the TL system”. “Dolet’s emphasis on upon avoidance of literalism and
upon the use of vernaculars is strikingly relevant for all types of
translation aimed at a general audience”. However, Dolet’s principals
may be less useful for technical translators.
Tyndale was a scholar, translator, as well as a leading figure in the
Protestant Reform. Fascinated by Luther’s teachings, Tyndale tried to
imitate Luther and translate the Bible into English, and in doing so
became the first person to translate the original text to English. The
Catholic church was outraged, leaving Tyndale to flee to Germany where
he, with the help of his friend Marin Luther, managed to publish an
English version of both the Christian texts and the Torah, which were
then smuggled into England. However, they put a price on Tyndale’s
head and eventually had him arrested in Belgium, where he was put to
death in 1536. His translation of the Bible is credited with influencing the
King James version.
Seventeenth Century:
The 17th century witnessed the birth of many influential theorists, such as
Sir John Denham, Abraham Cowley and John Dryden. Sir John Denham
viewed the translator and the original writer as equals who operated in
different social and temporal contexts. The translator’s task, according to
Denham, was to reflect what they perceived from the original text as the
essential core of the work. He stresses both the formal aspect (Art) and
the spirit (Nature) of the work. However he warned against applying the
principle of literal translation to the translation of poetry.
Abraham Cowley, on the other hand, emphasized that the aim of
translation was not to let the intended reader know exactly what the
original writer mentioned in their text by leaving certain information out
while adding some segments of the original. He was in favour of free
translation.
John Dryden was and still remains well known for the essays that he
wrote on translation. Dryden argued that all translation may be reduced to
these three types:
1- ‘metaphrase’, i.e., rendering word by word, sentence by sentence, etc.
from one language into another;
2- ‘paraphrase’, i.e., “translation with latitude” in which the translator
keeps an eye on the author of the source text, rendering his sense without
firmly sticking to his exact words; and
3- ‘imitation’, i.e., translation in which the translator experiences a
degree of freedom, “not only to vary from the words and sense, but to
forsake them both as he sees occasion”.
He was in favour of the middle path, that of paraphrase.
7
He stood against the third type of translation claiming, “Imitation of an
author is the most advantageous way for a translator to show himself, but
the greatest wrong which can be done to the memory and reputation of
the dead”
Dryden’s attitude in favour of paraphrase was not static; he tilted the
scale towards literalness situating himself between metaphrase and
paraphrase. Dryden’s justification for such a change was that “he had
come to believe that a translator must try to recreate the original’s style as
closely as possible”
Yet, he had come to believe that a translator must try to recreate the
original’s style as closely as possible.
Dryden says:
On the whole matter, I thought fit to steer betwixt the two extremes of
paraphrase and literal translation; to keep as near my author as I could,
without losing all his graces, the most eminent of which are the beauty of
his words.
4. Translation Theories in Modern Times
In the 18th century, the translator was likened to an artist with a moral
duty both to the work of the original author and to the receiver. With the
development of new theories and volumes on the translation process, the
study of translation started to be codified and systematized. Alexander
Fraser Tytler’s volume Principles of Translation (1791) is a case in point.
Tytler drew attention to three principles that should be taken into account
by translators:
1- the contents and/or ideas of the ST should be transferred completely
into the TT;
2- the style and manner of the ST should be retained in the TL;
3- the translation should have all the ease of the original composition .
Examining Tytler’s principals, one can observe the following the age-old
debate of the nature of translation: whether the translator had to opt for
word-for-word translation or sense-for-sense translation. While the first
principle requires translators to be faithful to the content of the original
text, the second principle encourages translators to be free from linguistic
constraints involving form and denotation in favour of a more functional
perspective. We see in his third principle, Tytler developing the concepts
of ‘fluency’, ‘naturalness’ and domestication.
In describing a good translation, Tytler stated that it is the translation in
which the merit of the original work is so completely transfused into
another language, as to be as distinctly apprehended, and as strongly felt,
by a native of the country to which that language belongs. Although
8
Tytler was of a view that translators had to clarify obscurities in the
original by way of omission or addition, he stood against ‘paraphrase’,
which was supported by Dryden holding that the concept of ‘paraphrase’
had led to exaggeratedly loose translations.
Nineteenth Century: Friedrich Schleiermacher & Muhammad Ali
Pasha (Romanticism & Reformism)
The 19th century was characterized by two conflicting tendencies:
1) considering translation as a category of thought, with the translator
seen as a creative genius, who enriches the literature and language into
which he is translating.
2) viewing the translator in terms of performing the mechanical function
of making a text or an author known.
The 19th century witnessed the emergence of Romanticism, which led to
the birth of many theories and translations in the domain of literature.
Poetic translations in particular gained in popularity such as Edward
Fitzgerald's Rubaiyat Omar Al-Khayyam (1858) .
Translation in the 17th century was considered as ‘essentially copying’,
prohibiting translators from passing on their comments of their
interpretations, and that can be traced back to the Septuagint’. In the 18th
century, the concept of copying was slightly modified to mean “a
recreation in terms of the other language”- the translator’s duty was “to
create the spirit of the ST to the reader of the time”.
With the rise of hermeneutic theories, translation in the 19th century was
conceived as an “interpretive recreation of the text”. However, this does
not rule out the existence of the other school of translation theory that
considered translation as being a “transmission of data”. The theologian
and translator, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1813), considered the founder
of the modern hermeneutics, took the discussion a step further in his
essay entitled 'On the Different Methods of Translating' in which he
focused on the “methodologies of translations”, rather than “illuminating
the nature of the translation process.” Schleiermacher argued that a
Translator:
Either leaves the writer alone as much as possible and moves the reader
towards the writer, or leaves the reader alone as much as possible and
moves the writer towards the reader. He further added that both paths are
so completely different from one another. One of them must definitely be
adhered to as strictly as possible, since a highly unreliable result would
emerge from mixing them, and it is likely that author and reader would
not come together at all.
9
In the Arab World, in particular in Egypt, in the nineteenth century
during Muhammad Ali's time, Rifa'ah al-Tahtāwī rose to prominence as a
translator as well as the author of Takhlis Al-Ibriz Fi Talkhis Bariz a
famous account of his journey. A figure of importance in the revival of
the Arabic language and literature, known as Nahda, al-tahtawi, became
the second director of what began as the School of Translation and was in
1837 subsequently renamed the School of Languages. Despite its title,
this was more of a translation bureau than a language school.
5. Contemporary Translation Theories
In his paper entitled ‘The Name and Nature of Translation Studies’,
Holmes (1972/2004) states that translation, as a discipline, is divided into
two main branches: pure translation studies and applied translation
studies. While the former concerns itself with theoretical and descriptive
studies, the latter exclusively deals with issues related to translator
training, translator aids and translation criticism:
Holmes' map of translation studies (Toury, 1995:10)
The 1990s, as translation begins to find its footing as an independent
scholarly discipline, could be boldly described as ‘the bloom of
translation studies’. There appear two “different paradigms… to be
deriving research”:
10
1. Text Linguistics wich relates the notion of equivalence to text
typology; and
2. Cultural Sudies, which shifts focus of attention towards “how
values, ideologies, and institutions shape practices differently in
different historical periods”
The most influential theories of translation that emerged in the 1990s:
1. Pragmatic Theories, which drew upon Speech Act theory
introduced first by Austin (1962) and later developed by Searle
(1975), bring particular attention to the importance of linking the
illocutionary force (i.e., the communicative force of the utterance)
to its perlocutionary effect (i.e., the effect of the utterance on the
receptor). Thus not only the “referential meaning of individual
elements” should be taken into account by the translator, but “the
illocutionary force of each speech act” and its effect on the
reader/hearer as well.
2. Register-oriented theories in translation, which were based on
early formulation of Register theory presented by Halliday et al
(1964) and later by Gregory and Caroll (1978), focus on the
analysis of the text according to its user, taking into account three
variables: 1) field of discourse; (i.e., the subject matter or contents
being discussed 2) mode of discourse (i.e. the channel of
communication); and 3) tenor (i.e. the relationship between the
participants). There is overlap between all three variables, filed,
mode and tenor. The three variables are interdependent: a given
level of formality (tenor) influences and is influenced by a
particular level of technicality (field) in an appropriate channel of
communication (mode). Translators who are required to produce
abstracts in a target language from SL conference paper, for
example, will be attentive to the subtle changes in field, mode and
tenor that are involved.
3. Simultaneously, the psycholinguist scholar, Ernst-August Gutt
(1991) introduces his Relevance theory in which he argues that
language users tend to use the least amount of effort to convey the
maximum amount of information. He draws attention to the
importance of the inferential approach of relevance theory to
obtaining a deeper and precise level of understanding texts. He
further argues that the intended interpretation of the translation, in
order to resemble the ST, should make it adequately relevant to the
audience. Similarly, the translation needs be presented in a way
11
that easily tells the intended interpretation without putting the
audience to unnecessary processing effort.
4. The notion of translator’s invisibility, as opposed to visibility, is
introduced by Lawrence Venuti. By invisibility, he means that
translators tend to hide their voices, thus producing a 'fluent' piece
of translation by avoiding any linguistic or stylistic peculiarities
that make it seem transparent. To put this differently, the TT
sounds as if it were not a 'translation', but rather the 'original'. By
contrast, visibility, according to Venuti, refers to that type of
translation in which translators, whether deliberately or not, leave
their fingerprint in the TT, thus producing a piece of work full of
linguistic and stylistic features that strike the TL reader as marked
and unusual.
5. Having traced back a distinction made by the German theologian
and translator Friedrich Schleiermacher (aforementioned), Venuti
argues that translation strategy can be either domesticating or
foreignizing:
• Domestication means filtering out all foreign features,
producing a text more acceptable and readable by the TL
reader.
• Foreignization means leaving the linguistic and cultural
features of the SL, thus producing a text full of foreignness,
i.e., moving the reader to the writer.
12
