Cultural Aspects In Romanian Subtitling

UNIVERSITATEA TRANSILVANIA

FACULTATEA DE LITERE

SPECIALIZAREA: ROMÂNĂ- ENGLEZĂ

LUCRARE DE LICENȚĂ

2016

CULTURAL ASPECTS IN ROMANIAN SUBTITLING

1

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

1. THEORIES AND CONCEPTS ABOUT TRANSLATION

1.1. THE HISTORY OF TRANSLATION

1.2. TYPES OF TRANSLATION

1.3. TRANSLATIONAL EQUIVALENCE

1.4.TRANSLATION STRATEGIES

1.5.CULTURAL ASPECTS OF TRANSLATION

2. AUDIOVISUAL TRANSLATION

3. PRACTICAL APPROACH

CONCLUSIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2

INTRODUCTION

Translated films, through regular distribution reach a larger audience than any other form of translation and several researches has been done on the subject of translated films. This is a statement made by Hans Vöge a quarter of a century ago. Recently, especially since the beginning of the 1990's, when the notion of a well-defined job of a subtitler emerged, research into the screen translation field is promoted, courses on subtitling are offered in more and more universities worldwide and symposiums are held on the subject of screen translation. Yet, it is a subject that remains raw; a lot is to be said and various aspects of subtitling, and screen translation in general, are still to be researched.

Although in the field of translation there is an abundance of publications on the subject of translation theory in general, as well as on each different branch of translation in particular, there is no comprehensive theoretical framework for screen translation. Publications in subtitling and dubbing are usually in the form of guidelines from already practising subtitlers or adaptors, trying to shed light on the main every day issues and practical parameters involved in their profession, in order to help their younger colleagues. Another common type of publication is technical articles on the advances in the area of screen translation or articles concerning theoretical discussions on the argument between subtitling and dubbing, about which practice is the better one.

There are only very few publications that actually deal with the question of what exactly goes on in the screen translation process itself, classify the problems one encounters or propose/describe strategies towards their solution. Even in those cases, the translation strategies proposed, as for example Gottlieb's categorisation, do not always produce a clear definition of under which circumstances each strategy should be employed. Furthermore, translation strategies focus on the rendition of the textual-linguistic form rather than that of textual meaning. The analysis of the issues posed by subtitling serves as a reminder for the reader that subtitling is not concerned with the translation of the source text alone, but of the film as a whole.

3

Reduction is the primary principle of subtitling, lies at the very heart of all subtitling work and is the first task people are taught when trained to subtitle. Its occurrences have been described by subtitlers and subtitling scholars on several occasions to date, however, mainly from a linguistic point of view. Easily omitted items, for example, figure in most subtitling handbooks. Reduction owes its significance to the space or time constraints of subtitling.

Neither has any research been conducted so far with a view to comparing and contrasting subtitling styles at an international level. People talk of different national styles of subtitling: the Dutch style of timing subtitles to the onset of speech for example, or the French style of timing them to shot changes. We will see how different screen translation methods are being used on different occasions, but there is usually one that supersedes all and has become established in each country. A first step in solving differences in subtitling styles is to compare the reduction levels in subtitling in different countries. The practical relevance of such findings can only be understood in the light of the latest technological advance in the entertainment industry, DVD, with the subsequent impact it has had on the screen translation industry, as it has been the reason for the recent centralisation the market is witnessing.

Subtitling being a relatively new field of research, with limited available literature, combined with the lack of specialised knowledge on the author's behalf when this research was initially undertaken, necessitated the use of various research techniques. The theoretical part of the research consists of the study of translation theory with a view to providing a subtitling model for the linguistic analysis of the raw material gathered. Attendance at conferences and symposiums was necessary to keep abreast with developments in the field, but free-form interviews and informal chats with practitioners of the craft, as well as company directors, were felt to be the only way for me to gain a better understanding of the practice of subtitling.

The lexical techniques of translation were not discovered and described by modern linguists. Describing the lexical techniques applied in the case of subtitling is to establish a theoretical framework for subtitling theory, which will then be applied to the analysis of the raw data gathered.

4

A detailed description of the subtitling process itself is also necessary in order to understand the similarities and differences of subtitling to any other branch of translation in general, so as to single out the issues that play an important part in the subtitling process and that need to be taken into account when analysing subtitle files.

5

1.THEORIES AND CONCEPTS ABOUT TRANSLATION

The main purpose of this chapter is to introduce the reader to major concepts and models of translation studies. The research undertaken in this field is extensive, the material selected is necessarily representative and illustrative of the major trends. For reasons of space and consistency of approach, the focus is on written translation rather than oral translation, such as interpreting or interpretation, although the overlaps make a clear distinction impossible.

The English term translation, first attested in around 1340, derives either from Old French translation or more directly from the Latin translatio (‘transporting’), itself coming from the participle of the verb transferre (‘to carry over’). In the field of languages, translation today has several meanings, such as the general subject field or phenomenon, the text that has been translated and the process of producing the translation, otherwise known as translating.

The concept of translation between two different written languages involves the changing of an original written text (the source text or ST ) in the original verbal language (the source language or SL ) into a written text (the target text or TT ) in a different verbal language (the target language or TL ).

Translation theory aims at determining, categorizing, and ultimately utilizing general principles of the translation process in relation to its major issues.1 Translation theories can be divided into three main categories:

1. Translation theories based on Source-oriented approaches

2. Linguistic translation theories

3. Recent translation theories

1 Bassnett & McGuire , Translation Studies, Methuen, London and New York, 1985

6

From the 2nd Century B. C. until the last century, all theoretical frameworks developed under Source-oriented approaches were concerned with what a translator must or must not do. The principle focus was on the closeness to the source text as regards both meaning and form. In other words, the translator needed to reproduce the text, in all its aspects, as a target text.

For example, Etienne Dolet of France (1509-46) devised one of the first theories of translation. He established five essential principles for translators which can be classified under Source- oriented theories2:

The translator must fully understand the sense and meaning of the original author, although he is at liberty to clarify obscurities.

The translator should have a perfect knowledge of both SL and TL.

The translator should avoid word-for-word renderings.

The translator should use forms of speech in common use.

The translator should choose and order words appropriately to produce the correct tone.

George Chapman, the famous translator of Homer, restated these principles into the following: avoid word- for- word rendering; attempt to reach the ‘spirit’ of the original and avoid over loose translations, by basing the translation on a sound scholarly investigation of other versions and glosses.3

Two centuries later, Alexander Frazer Tytler published The Principles of Translation, a systematic study of the translation process in English and stated the following principles4:

The translation should give a complete transcript of the idea of the original work.

2 Bassnett & McGuire , Translation Studies, Methuen, London and New York, 1985: 54

3 Ibid, p. 55

4 Ibid, p. 63

7

The style and manner of writing should be the same character with that of the original.

The translation should have all the ease of the original composition.

According to Matthew Arnold translator must focus on SL text primarily and must serve that text with complete commitment.5 The TL reader must be brought to the SL text through the means of translation.

H.W. Longfellow is even more committed to the ST and the author. He argues: „The business of a translator is to report what the author says, not to explain what he means; that is the work of the commentator. What an author says and how he says it, that is the problem of the translator.”6

St. Jerome’s suggestions about how to render translation can be considered another example of Source-oriented theories:

St. Jerome already stated that Bible translations must respect the exact form of the source text because God’s word must not be tampered with whereas in secular texts the translator should strive to render the meaning of the source text.7

Conversely, linguistic translation theories have a history dated from the 1900s which has lasted for approximately half a century. At that time, translation was absorbed into the discipline of linguistics. That means that it was conceived as a branch of linguistics, and not as an independent science. These theories became headed as linguistic studies rather than as translation studies.

During that time, translation theory was regarded as a part of linguistic communication based on “Information Theory”. This theory defines language as a ‘code.’ During communication, speakers or writers encode what they want to say and the listeners or readers, who share the same code, would decode it. Therefore, translation is a special case of communication because sender and receiver do not share the same code; the translator recodes the message from the sender into the receiver code. The main issue of translation is to sustain the original message despite that there is generally no correspondence between the signs of the two different code systems.

5 Bassnett & McGuire , Translation Studies, Methuen, London and New York, 1985: 69.

6 Ibid, p.70.

7 Ibid, p.80.

8

These theories were also basically source-oriented, normative, synchronic and focused on process as in the previous period.

In the last three decades of the 20th century Translation Studies started to become an autonomous science. James Holmes, an American poet and translator coined the term Translation Studies for this new scientific approach. He believes that the main intention of Translation Studies is the development of a full and comprehensive translation theory.8

At that time, the most influential theories were the “Skopos Theory,” the “Relevance Theory,” and the Target-Oriented Approach. The proponent of the Skopos Theory was Hans Vermer, who views the translation process and the teaching of it as a substantial revision of the linguistic attitude. This considers translation as a communicative process in which purpose has been given the major emphasis. The “Relevance Theory” provided by Sperber and Wilson argues that there is no need for a distinct general theory of translation because translation can be naturally accounted for under the general aspect of human communication.9

However, these two theories mentioned that stem from linguistic paradigms do not concern literary translations. To determine the functions and describe literary equivalents is difficult because the meaning of these texts stem not only from their denotative meaning, but especially from their connotative meaning.

Douglas Robinson in his book, Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to

Nietzsche, states:

We are currently in the middle of a translation studies boom: all around the world new programs are springing up, some aimed at the professional training of translators and interpreters, others at the academic study of translation and interpreting, most at both.10

8 E. Gentzler, Contemporary Translation Studies, Routledge,New York, 1993.

9 A. Gutt, A theoretical Account of Translation without a Translation Theory, St. Jerome, Manchester, UK, 1993

10 D. Robinson , Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche, St. Jerome, Manchester, UK, 1997.

9

James Holmes’ famous book, The Name and Nature of Translation Studies, is considered as a major step in the scholarly study of translation.11 This book provides a theoretical system that both recognises and unifies many aspects of translation studies. It predicts an entire future dicipline and effectively encourage work aimed at establishing that discipline. This book was a major stepward because it attacked the unclear but ‘self assured’ categories that used to judge translations for so long a time. Holmes grouped scientifically and arranged his topics hierarchically. ‘Applied’ was opposed to ‘Pure’, the latter devided into ‘Theoretical’ and ‘Descriptive’, then ‘Descriptive’ was broken down in turn into ‘Product Oriented’, ‘Process Oriented’ and ‘Function Oriented’.

Translation Studies

Translation Studies is classified into Descriptive Translation Studies and Theoretical Translation Studies. The aim of Descriptive Translation Studies is ‘to describe the observable facts of translating and translation(s) as they manifest themselves in the world of our experience’, where for translating we mean the process that underlies the creation of the final product of translation. The objective of the Theory of Translation Studies is ‘to establish general principles by means of which these phenomena can be explained and predicted’.

There are three main types of research within Descriptive Translation Studies: product-oriented, process-oriented and function-oriented. The focus of product-oriented descriptive translation studies is the description of individual translations. Process-oriented descriptive translation studies aims at revealing the thought processes that take place in the mind of the translator while she or he is translating. Function-oriented descriptive translation studies include research which describes the function or impact that a translation or a collection of translations has had in the socio- cultural situation of the target language.

Theoretical Translation Studies often uses the empirical findings produced by Descriptive Translation Studies. It elaborates principles, theories and models to explain and predict what the process of translation is, given certain conditions such as a particular pair of languages or a particular pair of texts.

Theoretical Translation Studies hold both a General Translation Theory and Partial Translation Theories. Holmes established the final aim of the discipline as the elaboration

11 J. Holmes, The Name and Nature of Translation Studies, Rodopi, Amsterdam, 1972: 67–80.

10

of a general theory capable of explaining and predicting all phenomena regarding translating and translation. However, as he recognized, most theories that had been elaborated until that time were models limited to one or more aspects of translation. The formulation of a general theory is a long-term goal for the discipline as a whole.

Holmes distinguishes six different types of Partial Translation Theory: medium restricted (theories of human versus computer assisted translation or written versus oral translation), area-restricted (theories relating to specific language communities), rank-restricted (theories dealing with language as a rank or level system), text-type restricted (theories relating to particular text categories such as poems, technical manuals), timerestricted (theories dealing with contemporary texts or those from an older period), and problem restricted(for example theories concerning the translation of puns, titles, idioms, proper names, metaphors).

Applied Translation Studies

Applied Translation Studies, the second main branch of the discipline, is concerned with the following issues, such as the translator training; the preparation of translation tools, such as dictionaries, grammars, term banks; translation criticism which concerns itself with the development of criteria for the evaluation of the quality or effectiveness of the translation product; the establishment of translation policy (which involves giving advice on the role of the translator in a given socio-cultural context, deciding on the economic position of the translator, or deciding on which texts need to be translated, or deciding on the role that translation should play in the teaching of foreign languages.

Translation Studies was extremely Source-Oriented in the 1970s. Translators were primarily concerned with the source text and with the safeguard of its legal rights. Target constraints became supplementary unless they fell within the range of linguistics.

Gideon Toury, a translation scholar and theoretician, planed the Target Oriented Approach based on Polysystem Theory.12 This approach is an exclusive and comprehensive theory of translation that is also a reaction to normative, synchronic and Source-System Oriented theoretical frameworks. In his book, In Search of a Theory of Translation, he says that he wants to put together a general theory applicable to all translational phenomena.

12 G. Toury, In Search of a Theory of Translation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 1980 : 7.

11

The Target Oriented Approach criticizes major principles of Source- Oriented Theories, and replaces them with new ones. First of all, traditional Source Oriented Theories define two levels in Translation Studies: theory and process. The Target Oriented Approach criticizes this and claims that theories developed by Source-Oriented Theories do not suit translation realities because they are abstract, prescriptive norms that do not stem from actual translation processes:

… it appears not only as naive, but also as misleading and infertile for translation studies to start from the assumption that translation is nothing but an attempt to reconstruct the original, or certain parts or aspect thereof, or the preservation of certain predetermined features of the original, which are (or are to be) unconditionally considered the invariant under transformation, in another sign-system, as it is usually defined from the source’s point of view.13

After about two decades, target text attracted lots of attention among scholars. Toury's idea that a translation is a text that is accepted in the target culture as being a translation was revolutionary. The notion carries several important implications. First, as Toury argues that translations are facts of the culture which hosts them, with the assumption that whatever their function and identity, these are constituted within that same culture and reflect its own constellation. A translation is a translation in the target culture, not the source culture.

By focusing on the role of target factors in a translation, whether retrospectively or prospectively, one will discover that he or she is opting for the target-oriented approach, even though, in the course of application one will return to the source text. It is a matter of orientation.

Descriptive Translation Studies was added to the skeleton of Translation Studies, a branch that is necessary for every empirical discipline: „No empirical science can make a claim for completeness and (relative) autonomy unless it has developed a descriptive branch.”14 Descriptive branch of the discipline was developed to replace isolated freestanding studies.

13 G. Toury, In Search of a Theory of Translation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 1980 : 17.

14 G. Toury, The manipulation of Literature, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 1985: 16.

12

Toury believes that the three branches of “theoretical,” “descriptive,” and “applied” Translation Studies interact with each other. These three branches deal with possible, existing, and required relationships. Toury, asserts that Descriptive Translation Studies is at the heart of the discipline. It has a distinctive internal organization; it interacts with translation theory and has a unidirectional relationship with applied extensions.

He considers for Descriptive Translation Studies a major role in the development of the whole discipline as an independent field of study: „(…) one of the aims of Translation Studies should definitely be to bring the results of descriptive-explanatory studies executed within DTS to bear on the theoretical branch.”15

Applied Translation Studies, on the other hand, in accordance with the results of Descriptive Translation Studies and accordingly with the theoretical branch is a prescriptive branch:

They (Applied Translation Studies) are not intended to account either for possibilities and likelihoods or for facts of actual behavior, but rather set norms in a more or less conscious way. In brief, to tell others what they should have done/ or should be doing, if they accept these norms and submit to them.16

According to Toury, translations primarily occupy a position in the social and literary systems of the target culture, and this position verifies the translation strategies that are used.

15 Gideon Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 1995: 19.

16 Ibid, p. 25.

13

1.1.THE HISTORY OF TRANSLATION

Translation can be defined as the result of a linguistic- textual operation in which a text in one language is contextualized in another language. As a linguistic- textual operation, translation is the subject influenced by a variety of extra- linguistic factors and conditions. It is this interaction between linguistic- textual and extra- linguistic, contextual factors that makes translation such a complex phenomenon. There are several factors in translation, such as :

the characteristics and the constraints of the languages that are involved in translation;

the linguistic world that is divided in source and target languages;

the source text with its stylistic features that belong to the target of usage ;

the stylistic norms of the target cultural community;

the language norms internalized by the translator;

intertextuality governing the totality of the text in the target culture;

traditions, principles, histories and ideologies of translation holding in the target lingua-cultural community;

the translational given to the translator by the person(s) or institution commissioning the translation;

the translator’s workplace conditions;

the translator’s knowledge, expertise, ethical stance and attitudinal profiles as well as her subjective theory of translation;

the translation receptors’ knowledge, expertise, ethical stance and attitudinal profiles of the translator as well as their subjective theories of translation.

While translation is at its core a linguistic- textual operation, a multitude of other conditioning and constraining factors on its processes, performance and on translation quality.

14

However, it is impossible for any practicable model of translation quality assessment to take into account all of these factors, much less so in an essentially text-based model. Despite the multiple conditioning of translation and the resulting complexity, one may still, as a common core, retain the minimal definition of translation as a replacement of an original text in one language with a text in another language. When using the term replacement, one may assume, rather negatively, that any translated text is in principle second-best, such as a substitute for the real thing. Viewed this way, translation is by definition a secondary act of communication. Normally, a communicative event happens only once. In translation, this communicative event is reduplicated for persons or groups otherwise prevented from appreciating the original communicative event. More positively, however, translation can be seen as enabling – often for the first time – original access to a different world of knowledge, to different traditions and ideas that would otherwise have been locked away behind a language barrier. From this perspective, translation has often been described as a builder of bridges, an extender of horizons, providing recipients with an important service and enabling them to move beyond the borders of the world staked out by their own language. It is through translation that lingua-cultural barriers can be overcome. So translation is one of the most important mediators between societies and cultures. But despite all these assets, it remains a fact that translation only gives readers access to a message which already exists. This inherently derived nature of translation also means that, in translation, there is always both an orientation backwards to the existing previous message of the original text and an orientation forwards towards how texts in a corresponding genre are composed in the target language. This type of relationship is a basic characteristic of translation which should not be forgotten.

In a broader term, the process of translation commenced with the birth of the first human being when he started to communicate with his partners to express his thoughts into words. That can be called the initial and the first step in the history of translation. Later on, with the evolvement of human cultures and civilizations, it began to shape up according to the need of the human societies. Different cultures began to preserve their memories in the form of epigraphs on walls or animal skins which we are trying to decode today in our languages as a result of evolution.

15

The translation was not considered as a creative work, art or science but a mere copy. Translators differed in the comprehended they gave to the term such as faithfulness, accuracy or translation. Consequently, the progression of translation theory was slow to form over the ages. As Amos has stated, the inconvenience of succesiveness in criticism is responsible for the slowness in which translators achieved the power to put into words, their purposes and methods. In the modern era the variety of theories and sub-theories’ for one reason is the fact that

the process of translating can be viewed from so many different perspectives: stylistics, author’s intent, diversity of languages differences of corresponding cultures, problems of interpersonal communication, changes in literary fashion, distinct kinds of content, and the circumstances in which translations are to be used, read in the tranquil setting of one’s own room, acted on the theatre stage, or blared from a loudspeaker to a restless mob.17

The lack of adequacy in theoretical treatment is because it depends upon “a number of disciplines: linguistics, cultural, anthropology, psychology, communication theory, and neurophysiology.”18 As it is impossible to trace back the complete history of translation, it can be divided into four historical eras in order to grasp a development of the theory: translation in Ancient Period, translation in Middle Period, translation in Renaissance Period and translation in Modern Period.

17 E. Nida, Theories of Translation, Brill, California, 1969: 85.

18 Ibid, p. 89.

16

Translation in Ancient Period

Ancient period or antiquity begins in 4th millennium B.C. and ends by the fifth century A.D. There are distinctions between Antiquity in Asia and Antiquity in Europe, regarding their social organization. Therefore, the uniqueness of various cultures is taken into consideration on the discussions of the multiple translation approaches. Looking for the traces of translation, they are found in inscriptions in two languages in the Egyptian Old Kingdom, in the 3th millennium B.C.

In fifth century B.C., Arabic speaking Jews were engaged in trading and traveling in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Since the Arabic language had many dialects so these traders were unable to understand the classical Hebrew of scriptures. As a result, Nehemiah, a Jew leader, got classical scriptural as Hebrew translated into the Arabic language as Jews weren’t able to understand Classical Hebrew. Alexandria (Egypt), the intellectual and commercial center of Mediterranean region, was populated by Greek speaking Jewish community in the third century B.C. The Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek and was named Septuagint (seventy) as seventy scholars translated it. After that period, Greek classics were translated into Latin, for instance, Livius Andronicus who had translated Homer’s Odyssey into Latin verse and other scholars like Naevius and Ennius translated Greek plays into Latin. Since that time, Roman began to take over many elements of Greek Culture by translation. Rosetta Stone’s translations from Egyptian languages into Greek are well known examples of that time.

Cicero’s translations of Plato’s work and other Greek works as well as Horace’s contribution into Latin are considered the landmark in the history of translation. They agreed on sense for sense translation. Cicero states that if he render word for word, the result will sound strange and if he compelled anything in the order of wording, the function of a translator will disappear. In this remark the thought of Cicero favors sense for approach and notifies against the prudent imitation of the source model. So it can be said that Cicero’s sense for sense approach laid the primary rule that translation has to be understandable.

17

Translation of literature played a very significant role in the development of the history and civilization of human beings. Hence, if it were not for translation, the world would have been living in darkness; through translation Greeks acquired knowledge from Hebrew language, and Romans from Greeks and Arabs; English from all of the above mentioned sources respectively. The knowledge in the Arabic language was all over Asia, Africa and all those remote areas where Arab traders or Western explorers went to navigate new worlds. Thus, the translation of Greek literature can be considered a turning point in the Renaissance period of Europe. In epic poetry Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey; in drama Aeschylus’s and Sophocles’ trilogies, Euripides’ Medea; Aristophanes’ Lysistrata and many others were not only read and enacted but they are still read and taught all over the world. Romans perceived translation as a way of enriching their culture, so they paid special attention to imitation. Hence, they have been criticized for a lack of creativity and originality in translation which is not fair in that case. This can be considered one of the problems of translation in the Antiquity period. Translation was employed as a way to realize the political and religious purposes of the leading classes, that were represented by Kings. Two orientations towards translation, such as sense for sense and word for word, existed in the antiquity or in other words the primary approaches of translation.

Translation in Middle Period

Middle Era represents the time between 5th century and the 15th century A.D.in Europe. Middle Ages continue untill the advent of European Colonialism, the eighteenth century in the Oriental and African countries. With Christianity, translation has a new role of spreading the word of God. To translate the divine words was an issue because of dogmatic and political concerns. St. Jerome delares that he follows sense for sense approach when translating the New Testament in AD 384. Since the purpose of the divine text is to provide understanding and guidance, it seems logical to follow sense for sense approach. There is a possibility of change of meaning and the context; for these reasons, students emphasize on the word for word translation approach.

18

The first translation of the complete Bible into English was the Wycliffe Bible’s which was realized from 1380 until 1384; Wycliffe believes anyone should have contact with God and as a result, Bible should be translated into language that anyone can understand. Purvey believes translator should translate after sentence, not only after words. Martin Luther says that the grammar should not be considered the meaning and subject matter, as the grammar should not rule over the meaning. Criticism on sense for sense was widespread because it underestimated the power of the church authorities, while literal translation was connected with the Bible and other religious and philosophical works, non- literal translation is used as a weapon against the Church.

“In the Western Europe this word- for- word versus sense- for- sense debate continued in one form or another until the twentieth century. The centrality of Bible to translation also explains the enduring theoretical questions about accuracy and fidelity to fixed source.”19 In the eighth and ninth century A.D., a large number of translations from Greek into Arabic gave rise to Arabic learning. The students from Syria, a part of the Roman Empire, during 64 B.C.-636 A.D, arrived to Baghdad to translate Greek works of Hippocrates, between 460 and 360 B.C., philosophers Plato (427-327 B.C.) and Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) into Arabic in the eighth and ninth century A.D. Baghdad was a center of translations of Greek classics into Arabic in the twentieth century A.D. The dominance of religion is prominent in the Translation of Middle Period. In this era, both the trends of Antiquity period can be seen in action, yet emphasis is again on the sense for sense approach.

Translation in Renaissance Period

The era of Renaissance encompasses the Western Cultural Movement’s history from approximately 1500 to the beginning of the 1700 by bridging between Middle Ages and Modern era. This period in time marked the rebirth of humanism, and the revival of cultural achievements for their own sake in all forms of art such as educational reforms, intellectual searches and political and social agitations. The word Renaissance is defined as a rebirth or a reconstruction. During the period of the Renaissance there were many translations from Greek origin.

19 J. Munday, The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies, Routhledge, USA, 2009: 3.

19

Renaissance inspired numerous translations of scientific and religious texts in England and all over the world. Translation was used for multiple purposes: as an aristocratic interest and patronage; legitimized writings as they gave access to Latin culture; reproduced the systems of content that support the Latin academic tradition. Moreover, the revolutionary era of Renaissance can be attributed to the study of translation. Translation of Greek and Roman classical oratories and plays were the starting point in the history of translation as it transformed the Europe and the Arab World into the new worlds. It broadened the minds of authors as well as the common people. Translation in Renaissance oriented the necessary law material of imagination, has an important meaning on the intellectual life of the translator had appeared as a revolutionary activist. As a result, translators are more active and sense for sense approach is used.

It was translation that enlightened the world. But, it was done on an individual level; may be their suppression compelled them to revolt against the religious persecutions so as a result it appeared to be a collective effort in the end. The process of replacement of one set of linguistic resources and values for another is as old as human being himself, yet the first person who systematically laid the principles of rendering is a French Humanist, Etienne Dolet, who in 1540, under the title of La maniere de bien traduire d’une langue en aultre, (How to do Translation well from one Language into Another) set the basic rules of translation studies.20

the translator must understand the sense and meaning of the original author, although he is at liberty to clarify obscurities.

the translator should have a perfect knowledge of both SL and TL.

the translator should avoid word-for-word rendering.

the translator should use forms of speech in common use.

the translator should choose and order words appropriately to produce the correct tone.

20 E. Dolet, La maniere de bien traduire d’une langue en aultre, Obsidiane, Paris, 1990.

20

The set of rules devised by Dolet are the principal road map for future translators because more or less the same paradigms were set by the rest of the translators with a slight emphasis on one of the above mentioned rules. Usually, the initial purpose of rendering is to transform the sense of the text into another language rather than the rhetorical and linguistics features or the structure of the SL, for it has been acknowledged that not two or more languages in the world have perfect equivalence for each other. Therefore, having a gist or a sense of the original text into a TL was important in the literature of the Renaissance.

The sixteenth century witnessed a well known movement called Protestantism or Reformation against the domination of church authorities over all other social classes by/of the kings and princes against the pope. This movement spread all over Europe and influenced the thinking of the people. Therefore, the church interdicted the people to read Bible in their native language. Martin Luther (1483- 1546) was the German theologian, author and reformation leader. He translated Bible into German and used it as an ideological tool of the Protestant Movement against the Roman clergy.

George Chapman (1559-1634), an English poet, dramatist, and a great translator of Homer, had also emphasized on catching on the spirit of the original text rather than word for word translation. He repeated Dolet’s views about the principles, that translator brings a “transmigration” of the original text, which he approaches on the technical level, as an ability to the author and audience.

In the period of Renaissance there were three most important names in the history of translation :

John Denham (1615-69) perceives translator and writer as equals, but activating in different context. The translator’s duty to the source language text is to perceives the essential of the work and to reproduce the work in target language.

Abraham Cowley (1618-67) sustains that the purpose of his translation is to let the reader know about the original author manner of speaking. Hence, it can be concluded that Cowley believes in free translation.

21

John Dryden (1631-1700), has set three groups of translation :

metaphase, or turning an author word by word from one language into another;

paraphrase, or translation with latitude, the Ciceronian sense for sense view of translation;

imitation, the translator can abandon the text of the original.

The precepts set by Dryden are also a reiteration of Dolet’s principles. In these precepts, like Dolet, Dryden also accentuates on the sense for sense rendering. Poets like Alexander Pope (1688-1744) adopted the same line of approach as that of Dryden.

Consequently, it can be perceived that the Renaissance period was prevailed by the sense for sense translation like the previous periods for multiples purposes.

Translation in Modern Times (The Linguistic Perspective)

Even though a lot of translation was done, yet translation theory could not get the acknowledgement and status that it deserved in the eighteenth century due to a lack of criticism on it. Otherwise, it would have been considered a prestigious task as a reward of the evaluation and revolution created by it in the lives of people. In the eighteenth century another related and significant work was done by Alexander Tytler’s Essay on the Principles of Translation. Tytler emphasized on the exact idea, style and manner of writing and the case of original work.”21

Dr. Johnson (1709-84), “comments that if elegance is gained, surely it is desirable, provided nothing is taken away. The right of the individual to be addressed in his own terms, on his own grounds, is an important element in the eighteenth century translation and is linked to the changing concept of originality.”22

21 A. Tytler’s, Essay on the Principles of Translation, Printed for T. Cadell & W. Davies, London, 1797.

22 S. Johnson, Dictionary of the English Language, Consortium, London, 1755.

22

Similarly, Goethe (1749-1832), argues that every literature must pass through three phases of translation23:

Acquaint us with foreign countries on our own terms;

Translator absorbs the sense of a foreign work but produces it in his own terms;

Purposes at identity between the source language text and the target language text; in order to achieve this there should be a new “manner” that relates the original with a new structure.

Tytler’s principles of translation appear to be the first systematic attempt, after Dryden, at the theory of translation. Tytler has laid down three rules for translation:

The translator should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work.

The style and manner of the work should be of the same character with that of the original.

The translation should have all the ease of the original composition.

Romanticism describes two concepts of translation: translation as a type of thought and translation as in terms of a mechanical function of a text or an author. The necessity to convey the original in time and place was a recurrent concern of Victorian translators. As a result, there was an archaic translation which only attracted the minority of an educated group. Edward Fitzgerald (1803- 63) brings a version of the source language text into the target language’s culture as an entity which lower the status of the dource language text. He translated Rubayyat of Omar Khayyam from Persian into English. Matthew Arnold (1822- 1888), who was an essayist, poet and literary critic, wrote the essay On Translating Homer and he argued that a translation should produce the same effect as the original.24

23 J. W. Goethe, Die leiden des jungen Werthers, Leipzig, 1774.

24 M. Arnold, On Translating Homer, University of Michigan Press, Michigan, 1861.

23

Thus, the main current of translation typology in the Age of Industrialized capitalism and colonial expansion can be classified as follows:

Translation as a scholar’s activity;

Translation as a way to encourage the reader to return to source language’s original:

The literal translation.

Translation as a way to help readers become the equal or better reader of the original, in source language text

Translation as a way of the translator to offer his choice to the target language reader

Translation as a way where the translator upgrade the status of the source language text

An interesting aspect of translation studies in the twentieth century projects that certain kinds of translation researches have been patronized and sponsored by certain interest groups such as religious, political, social, and economical to pursue translation as a social action. For example in China, Canada, America, Russia and many other countries use translation as a tool to convey their point of view by translating the literature that explains their ideologies and view points.

Religiously there are many institutions such as UNESCO that have been set around the world for the translation of divine books like Bible and the Holy Quran. According to Lawrence Venuti, the twentieth century translation theory reveals an expanded range of fields and approaches reflecting the differentiation of modern culture: not only varieties of linguistics, literary criticism, philosophical speculations and cultural theory, but experimental studies and anthropological fieldwork as well as translator training and translation practice. Any account of theoretical concepts and trends must acknowledge the disciplinary sights in which they emerged in order to understand and evaluate them. At the same time it is possible to locate recurrent themes if not broad areas of agreement. The first half of the twentieth century observes the perpetual traits of Victorian era in translation studies, but after that a spring of multiple approaches emerges.

24

James McFarlane’s article on Modes of Translation heightened the temperature of discussions on the problems of translation studies in the West and it has been considered the first publication from modern interdisciplinary view point. It will be easier for comprehension if the contemporary approaches are divided into linguistics and literary groups.

25

1.2. TYPES OF TRANSLATION

The theory of translation provides the translator with the appropriate tools of analysis and synthesis, making him aware of what he is to look for in the original text, what type of information he must convey in TT and how he should act to achieve his goal. In the final analysis, however, his trade remains an art.

Contemporary translation activities of a translator are characterized by a great variety of types, forms and levels of his responsibility. Each type of translation has its own combination of factors influencing the translating process. The general theory of translation should be supplemented by a number of special translation theories identifying major types of translation activities and describing the predominant features of each type.

Different types of translation depend on the predominant communicative function of the source text or the form of speech involved in the translation process. As a result, we can distinguish between literary and informative translation and between written and oral translation (or interpretation).25

Literary translation uses literary texts, works of fiction and poetry whose main purpose is to make an emotional impression to the reader. Their communicative importance depends on their artistic value and the translator’s primary responsibility is to reproduce the value in translation.

Informative translation is to render into the target language non- literary texts, the main aim is to convey ideas and to inform the reader. If the source text has some length, its translation is listed as literary or informative only approximative. A literary text include some parts of informative description. Contrary, informative translation contain some elements with the function to realize an aesthetic effect.

25 M. Baker, Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, Routledge, London and New York, 1998.

26

Literary translations is divided in the number of styles which needs for a specific arrangement and makes use of different artistic means to impress the reader. Each of the forms of literary works, such as prose, poetry or plays includes a number of styles and the translator specializes in one of them in conformity with his talents and experience. The specific tasks in the translation of each style are more literary than linguistic. The translator’ s challenge is to associate the equivalence and the high literary efficacy.

In technical translation the main purpose is to discover the situation depicted in the original. The prevalence of the referential function is a challenge to the translator who has a good understanding of the technical terms and of the theme in order to give an adequate depiction although this is not completely realized in the original. The technical translator is supposed to observe the stylistic demands of scientific and technical works to structure the text acceptable to the specialist. Several types of texts are identified by their distinctive features and by their different functional characteristics in both languages. English newspaper reports are different from their counterparts on account of the use of elements and paraphrases.

Separately from technical and newspaper works there is the translation of diplomatic papers as type of informative translation. These texts are included in particular category due to the specific demands to the quality of their translations. These translations are approved as authentic official texts on an equality with the originals. They are important documents as the words should be chosen as a subject of principle. That makes the translator specific about the elements of the original which are reproduced in translation. The imitation of the original results in the translator more readily incorrect in literality than to risk leaving out insignificant elements of the original contents.

Journalistic texts that deals with social or political matters are excluded from other informative materials as they may elements frequently used in literary text, such as metaphors, similes and other stylistic devices which influence the translator’s strategy. More often, they are regarded as a kind of newspaper materials, such as periodicals.

27

There are some groups of texts that are considered separately due to the specific problems their translation poses to the translator, for instance film scripts, comic strips and commercial advertisements. To dub a film the translator is limited in his choice of diverses by the necessity to fit the pronunciation of the translated words to the movement of the actor’s lips. Translating the captions in a comic strip, he translator will have to consider the numerous allusions to the regular readers of comics but less familiar to the foreign readers. In relation with commercial advertisements, their purpose is to win the prospective customers. The text of translation is related to different people than the original advertisement was and there are problems in realizing the same effect by introducing the necessary changes in the message.

In written translation the source text is in the same form as is the target text. In oral translation, the translator listens the oral introduction of the original message and translates it as an oral message in target language. As a consequence, in the first situation the interpreter can read the message and in the second situation, he hears the message.

There are another types of translation, such as when the translator realizes his translation by word of the original text. The written translation is realized of the original recorded on the CD or tape that can be listen several times, for the translator to understand the original content. These represent the modifications of the two types of translation and the line between written and oral translation is drawn due to their forms and sets of conditions in which the process takes place. The first translation is continuous and the second is momentary. In written translation the original text is read as the translator need. The translator can read his translation, compare it to the original, make the necessary corrections or start his work again, returning to the part of the original or get the information he needs from the subsequent messages. These are most favourable conditions and the best performance and the highest level of equivalence. For this reason, in theoretical discussions there are examples from written translations where the translating process can be observed in all its aspects.

The conditions of oral translation impose a number of restrictions on the translator’s performance. The interpreter receives a fragment of the original only for a short

28

period of time, his translation is an act which no possibility of any return to the original or any subsequent corrections. This creates additional problems and the users have to be content with a lower level of equivalence.

There are two categories of oral translation, consecutive and simultaneous. In consecutive translation the translating starts after the original speech or some part of it has been completed. The interpreter’s strategy and the final results depend on the length of the segment to be translated. If the segment is just a sentence or two the interpreter closely follows the original speech. The interpreter is expected to translate a long speech which has lasted for scores of minutes or even longer, remembering a number of messages and keep them in mind until he begins his translation. To make this possible the interpreter has to take notes of the original messages, various systems of notation having been suggested for the purpose. The study of such notation is the integral part of the interpreter’s training as are special exercises to develop his memory.

29

1.3. TRANSLATIONAL EQUIVALENCE

In 1970, the most important concept in translation studies was equivalence, that is applied in translation. As a result, translation is revealed as a process of communicating the source text by the relationship of identity with the source text. In 1963, George Mounin deny the concept of relativity that made translation not realizable and creates the concept of equivalence.

In this period, there were constant units in a text and several categories of language. There are some students who speculate about this concept, for instance Werner Koller and Eugene Nida.

Koller, in answering what this concept means, declares five types of equivalence27:

1. Denotative or equivalence of a text, that is also called content invariance.

2. Connotative or stylistic equivalence that depend on the resemblances of style.

3. Normative equivalence is related to text types

4. Pragmatic or communicative equivalence is oriented by the translator of the text or message.

5. Formal equivalence is related to the form of the text.

26 G. Mounin, (1963). Les problèmes théorique de la traduction, Gallimard, Paris, 1963: 38.

27 W. Koller, (1979a). Einführung in die übersetzungswissenschaft, Heidelberg-Wiesbaden, Quelle und Meyer, 1979a: 185.

30

Nida declares that there are two types of equivalence, such as formal and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence „focuses attention on the message, in form and content and dynamic equivalence is based on the rule of equivalent effect.”28 Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation concept according to which the translator searches to translate the original text in order to have the same impact on the audience.

During this period, there was a distinction between pragmatic equivalence, a translation which considers the reader language and formal equivalence, in which the linguistic and cultural aspects of the source text are transparent in translation.

In 1997, Newmark distinguished between "semantic and communicative translation and Juliane House between overt and covert translation.”29 An overt translation is a target text that do not have the significance to be original.30 However, a covert translation is a source text in the translating language culture. The source text is not related to the source text culture or audience, but both source and target text address their receivers directly. The function of a covert translation is to represent in the target text the function that the original has in its framework. House's distinction considers how much the source text is related to its culture for comprehensibility. If the significance of the source text is particular, an overt translation is needed to rely on further information, such as expansions, insertions or footnotes.

28 E. Nida & C. R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden, E. J. Bill, 1964: 159.

29 P. Newmark, A Textbook of Translation, Hempel Hempstead, Prentice Hall, 1998: 47.

30 J. House, A Model for Translation Quality Assessment, Tubingen: Gunten Narr., 1997: 66.

31

In 1965, Catford defines the concept of equivalence, as "departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from source language to translating language, departures that can occur at linguistic level as graphology, phonology, grammar and lexis.”31 He concludes that translation equivalence does not entirely match formal correspondence.

In the case of literary texts, functionalists denied the concept of equivalence and draw on the target language reader. Etmar Even- Zohar and Guidon Toury (1978) argue that literary translations are facts of the target system. A literary work is not studied in isolation but as part of a literary system, which is defined as a system of functions of the literary order which is in a relationship with other orders. Literature is part of the social, cultural and historical framework, and the notion is that of system, in which there is a dynamic mutation and for the primary position in the literary canon.

During this decade, with the expansion of translation research, to bring this field into a new academic discipline was the main purpose. At the time, Nida (1964) called his theories a science of translating, but the seminal paper, The Name and Nature of Translation Studies by James Holmes (1972) creates the way for the development of the field as a distinct discipline. He defines a name for the field, describes what translation studies represent and distinguished between research areas of theory and applied areas, like training and criticism.

31 J. Catford, (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1965: 73.

32

1.4. TRANSLATION STRATEGIES

Many strategies related to knowledge translation were reported in the literature, focusing on the implementation of existing and creation. Those studies represent the strategies used and their successes.

The evidence of knowledge implementation strategies came from studies on physicians, nursing or physician assistants. In addition, the knowledge targeted for implementation in these studies was not based entirely on research. Ultimately, the translation of research knowledge into practice involves the need for change to enable the use of the new research knowledge.

The authors realized that the use of particular strategies to implement research references are necessary to develop practice changes and that the efforts are generally successful. They indicated a necessity to conduct studies to evaluate interventions in a specific frame to clarify the facilities and to modify the efficacy of such interventions.

In 2004, Grimshaw concluded that there is an imperfect evidence base to support decisions about which guideline implementation strategies are likely to be efficient under different facilities.32 In addition, there is also a necessity to develop and validate a theoretical framework of professional and organizational behaviors to inform appropriate choices for implementation strategies and to estimate the efficacy of such strategies.

32 J. Grimshaw, R. Thomas, G. MacLennan, C. Fraser, C. Ramsey et al., Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline implementation strategies, Health Technology Assessment, 8, 2004.

33

In 2003, Vingillis reported the use of knowledge translation strategies that integrated knowledge generation with knowledge diffusion and utilization.33 During the project’s period, the researchers developed the research proposal, to reply to frustration which local professionals expressed. The researchers built a series of familiar potential knowledge users, who established a policy so that interested groups request reunions with the team. Vingillis used a partnership culture model in which researchers and potential knowledge users develop a partnership of trust, respect and common ground as the fundamental step to knowledge utilization. The strategies that this group used included estimation research that related the university and services to the community, using a research approach and connectors to sustain users in identifying knowledge necessities and researchers in translating.

The evidence to support the efficiency of translation strategies is available in the form of original studies. In 1999, Thomas, Rousseau and Steen could not locate the studies in their searches to conduct an evaluation of efficiency and practice guidelines in professions.

33 E. Vingillis, K. Hartford, T. Schrecker, B. Mitchell, B. Lent & J. Bishop, Integrating knowledge generation with knowledge diffusion and utilization, Canadian Journal of Public Health, 94, 2003: 468–471.

34

1.5. CULTURAL ASPECTS OF TRANSLATION

The translational capacity of culture is an important principle of culture’s specificity. Culture leads through translational activity, since culture includes new texts and innovations. After the expansion of the model of postcolonial and the related area of gender studies into translation studies, the line between culture studies and translation studies has not become clearer, there has appeared a visible complementarity. The comprehension of the cultural significance of a translation text has developed, especially regarding the importance of translations for the identity of the receiving culture. L. Venuti has called the identity forming power of translations, the ability of translations to participate, according to the necessity, in ensuring culture’s coherence and in activating cultural resistance or culture’s innovation processes.34

Culture theory, especially in the domain of cultural studies, has started to value the notion of identity through culture. Due to the activity of the globalization topic and the opposition of the global and the local, the agreement has been attained that no society which enact its specificity can escape the concern of cultural identity. The comprehension of the necessity of cultural identity for the understanding of political, social, economic and technological progress has been called the cultural turn: “The fact that cultural identity is the decisive factor in constructing the specificity of a certain society could be called the “cultural turn”. It means that contemporary political and social developments, but also economic and technological developments, whether they have a global or rather a local nature, can only be understood via the concept of cultural identity…”35

34 L. Venuti, The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference, Routledge, London, 1998: 68.

35 R. Segers, The cultural turn: The importance of the concept cultural identity, Leuven University Press, Leuven, 2000: 384– 385.

35

There are disciplines engaged in the study of culture, such as methodologically research into culture and general theory of culture. As a concern, culture allows for many different definitions, but in translation studies the possibilities are limited. Translation studies attempt to solve the same issues that cultural theory have been dealing.

Culture has its own sign procedure or languages on the account of which the members of the culture communicate. A possibility to comprehend a culture is to learn the languages of the culture, the sign procedures operating within the culture. Another possibility is to approach the culture through events and texts that creates different sign procedures and have a general understood or theme that can be represented.

An ethnological depiction of culture or one deriving from cultural anthropology is polylogic, for it remediates the cultural languages that differentiate themselves, described in an autonomous way. Semiotics of culture begun to fill a certain distance to describe the complexes of the languages of culture. J. Lotman made distinctions between two different evolutions in his depiction of culture. One process in the depiction of culture is the specialization of languages, the autonomy in culture of photography or film is the result of technical developments. Another process is the integration of languages, that can be characterized by the depictions and culture’s tentative through criticism, theory, the media and merging of cultural languages, beginning from experimental cases, the tranzitions between literature- theatre- film.36

The transforming nature of a culture requires competence from the student engaged in cultural analysis, such as the ability to analyze phenomena and mixtures, as the autonomy best explains the state of a culture and its dynamics. In the discipline of semiotics of culture it comes naturally to say that culture is translation and also that translation is culture.

In the present context, the translation activity explains the mechanisms of culture and translation itself is a notion that is loaded methodologically. The fact that translation as a notion is loaded does not signify it is metaphorized.

36 M. Lotman, Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture, I. B. Tauris, London, 1990: 572.

36

Translation and translating are similar notions with an active culture, which allow to approach the essence of cultural mechanisms and the analysis of translation, translating and culture are enriched.

37