Translation – came from the Latin “translatio” (to carry across), an adaptation from the Greek’s concept of “metaphrasis”

(word-for-word or literal) vs. “paraphrasis” (saying in other word). In linguistic approach, these terms are tantamount to
formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence.

In usage, verbatim translation is imperfect for words can carry multiple meaning but both are considered as ideals and
possible approaches in the process of translation.

History based on Theories

Western
Translation practice in 1600 – 1700, translation theorists focused more on “equivalents” or language meaning counterpart
to retain the essence and beauty of the original literature.

Prior to the proliferation of English literature and the different movements or school of thoughts, Romans already veered
away from “verbum pro verbo” (word for word) because what is beautiful in one language can be barbarous in the target
language.

With the old philosophers’ (Horace, Cicero, Terence, etc.) attempts to translate literature without causing injury the
context, it was discovered that there are words that failed to meet the standards of the principles of equivalence. Thus,
“untranslatable” words were bridged with “loanwords” to meet the grammatical rules governing the western literary world
and abiding the “sememe” or the intended meaning.

In the 13th century, a translation movement called Bilingualism started propagating the knowledge of both languages
(originating and targeted) is a pre-requisite of translation. Roger Bacon, a famous English Philosopher and the father of
empirical method of science is one of the advocates of this movement.

As religion and fanaticism beat its rhythm in the 18th century, Martin Luther made an axiomatic move to translate religious
literature, particularly the bible towards his native language.

Eastern: Sinosphere Theory

There is a separate tradition of translation in South Asia and East Asia (primarily modern India and China), especially
connected with the rendering of religious texts — particularly Buddhist texts — and with the governance of the Chinese
empire. Classical Indian translation is characterized by loose adaptation, rather than the closer translation more
commonly found in Europe, and Chinese translation theory identifies various criteria and limitations in translation.

In the East Asia Sinosphere (sphere of Chinese cultural influence), more important than translation per se has been the
use and reading of Chinese texts, which also had substantial influence on the Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese
languages, with substantial borrowings of vocabulary and writing system. Notable is Japanese Kanbun, which is a system
of glossing Chinese texts for Japanese speakers.

History of Literary Translation

First notable translation of the west would be the Septuagint, Jewish sacred scriptures translated into Koine Gk. (Jews
needed Gk version of their scriptures)
 Middle age, 19th cent – Latin was the lingua franca; there were struggles in translating religious and philosophical
scriptures; text were then translated to vernacular Latin.

With the large-scale effort to spread Buddhism, Tangut Empire utilized block printing translating centuries of
calligraphically rendered scriptures – promoting understanding of Buddhism as personally supported by the emperor and
his mother

After Arab conquered the Greek world, scientific and philosophical accomplishments were translated to Arabic texts.
These text were then converted to Latin that later helped the advancement of Scholasticism of European world.

13th century marked the flourishing of English equivalents that gave rise to the name of Geoffrey Chauser whose literary
work entitled Knight’s Tale marked the standards in translation.

15th century dawned the translation of prose literature opening the door to Arthurian literature to European writing.

Renaissance in Italy flipped another chapter in literature by introducing the works of Plato in straightforward language that
also paved the way for the works of other philosophers to be introduced in European Literature.

General Purposes of Translation

1.       Retrieval of lost information
2.       Understanding of the Universal Truth
3.       Sharing of beliefs
4.       Understanding and appreciation of culture
5.       Bridging cultural barrier
6.       Advancement in human achievement
7.       Addressing social needs
8.       Social Empowerment
9.       Binding nations
10.   Neo-culture development

Language Interpretation
General Definition

Language interpretation refers to the process of providing ease of understanding between users of language of origin and
target language. This could take the form of sign-language, oral interpretation or technologically-assisted programs.

Interpreting refers to the actual process of providing ease of understanding from one language form into its actual or
approximate equivalent. Interpretation pertains to the output of interpreting one language to another form (speech,
signals, text, etc.)

Interpreter  assumes the position of the person who converts thoughts or expression of a language form and defines its
equivalent to target language.

Equivalence in interpretation refers to linguistic, emotional, tonal and cultural parallel meaning of a language format with
the target language.

General Contrast

Interpretation Translation
Takes a message from a source Transfers the meaning of a language
language and renders that message format from text to text
into a different target language.

Interpreters take in a complex concept With ample time, translators use

from one language, choose the most external resources (dictionaries,
appropriate vocabulary in the target thesaurus, glossaries, etc.) to faithfully
 language to faithfully render the transfer the source language into the
message in equivalent idea. target language to produce accurate
documents or artifacts.

Does not use verbatim in process Attempts to reproduce source language

in its exact equivalents of the target
language

Call for accuracy is instantaneous as Uses revisions and editing techniques

the process is actual and immediate to attain accuracy
(extempore, consecutive, chuchotage,
relay, liaison)

Modes of Language Interpretation

Simultaneous (extempore) - interpreter renders the message in the target language as quickly as he can formulating
from the source language while the source continuously provides input.

Consecutive interpretation (CI) - interpreter renders the message into the target language after the source stopped
provided the information. The interpreter relies on memory and sometimes uses memory aids to render long passages.
Sight translation - refers to the process of transfering the language as he sees it and usually done for legal or medical
documents. Could also be classified as partial or full consequtive interpretation.

Whispered - interpreter sits or stands next to the small target-language group and simultaneously interprets information
coming from the source language.

Relay -usually used when there are several target languages. A source-language interpreter interprets the text to a
language common to every interpreter, who then render the message to their respective target languages.

Liaison - involves passing on the message through relay, between two or more, consecutively with the assistance of
short notes as memory aid.

Technical Translation
A technical translation refers to the need for specialist translators due to the use of uncommon vocabulary in a text.
Topics such as medicine, finance, law, engineering, software, manuals, etc would all be considered as technical. These
fields usually contain big amount of specific circumstances or ways to describe situations from the subject and also
contain high amount of jargon, words that are used (almost) only within that specific technical field.

Technical translation can also be defined as the translation of technical writing (owner's manuals, user guides, etc.), or

more specifically, texts that contain a high degree of technical or specialized terminology, that is, words or phrases that
are virtually used only within a specific profession, or describe that profession in great detail. Technical translation covers
the translation of many kinds of specialized texts which requires a high level of subject knowledge and mastery of the
relevant terminology.

In general, technical translation and language translation contrast in many ways. One of the differences would be the
subject of their focus – technical translation focus on easing the understanding of particular jargons used while language
translation finds a way to convert the language format into another language format as a whole. Technical translation may
use similar language format for the origin language and the target language but concentration would be on the set of
language use in understanding the literature. It is also interesting to note that language translation uses text-to-text format
while technical translation uses the process of explaining the details if actual equivalent is not available.

As previously defined, translation refers to the process of giving target language equivalent to the language of origin. The
same process is being applied in technical translation as the translators attempt to produce actual equivalent or
approximate equivalent through explanation of the source language into the target language format.
Literal Translation
Literal translation – transference of one language format to another following the form of the source language and using
the ‘verbum pro verbo’ principle. This is also known as metaphrase process and commonly used in technical translation
and legal annotation conversions to preserve the original format of the text undermining the context of the original text. 

In the light of contextual aspect, literal translation can be considered as erroneous since it does not carry the register of
the source language.

As for usage, literal translation can be a very useful tool for translation preparation as it serves as a foundation in
translating unfamiliar language format.

In communication, literal translation is currently being used in the form of machine translation. One the most common
example of these would be internet translators (i.e. babelfish, google translate, microsofttranslator, freetranslation,
worldlingo, etc.)

Without the tweaking process of human translators, machine translation could be misleading and sometimes totally
erroneous. The common result of this would be pidgins or translation with reference to the target language’s native format
and mistranslations that contextually unacceptable.

Principles of Translation
  Vinay and Darbelnet and their definition of equivalence in translation 

Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalence-oriented translation as a procedure which 'replicates the same situation as in the
original, whilst using completely different wording' (ibid.:342). They also suggest that, if this procedure is applied during
the translation process, it can maintain the stylistic impact of the SL text in the TL text. According to them, equivalence is
therefore the ideal method when the translator has to deal with proverbs, idioms, clichés, nominal or adjectival phrases
and the onomatopoeia of animal sounds.

With regard to equivalent expressions between language pairs, Vinay and Darbelnet claim that they are acceptable as
long as they are listed in a bilingual dictionary as 'full equivalents' (ibid.:255). However, later they note that glossaries and
collections of idiomatic expressions 'can never be exhaustive' (ibid.:256). They conclude by saying that 'the need for
creating equivalences arises from the situation, and it is in the situation of the SL text that translators have to look for a
solution' (ibid.: 255). Indeed, they argue that even if the semantic equivalent of an expression in the SL text is quoted in a
dictionary or a glossary, it is not enough, and it does not guarantee a successful translation. They provide a number of
examples to prove their theory, and the following expression appears in their list: Take one is a fixed expression which
would have as an equivalent French translation Prenez-en un. However, if the expression appeared as a notice next to a
basket of free samples in a large store, the translator would have to look for an equivalent term in a similar situation and
use the expression Échantillon gratuit(ibid.:256).

Jakobson and the concept of equivalence in difference 

Roman Jakobson's study of equivalence gave new impetus to the theoretical analysis of translation since he introduced
the notion of 'equivalence in difference'. OnTHE BASIS OF  his semiotic approach to language and his aphorism 'there is
no signatum without signum' (1959:232), he suggests three kinds of translation:

 Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or paraphrase)

 
 Interlingual (between two languages)
 
 Intersemiotic (between sign systems)
Jakobson claims that, in the case of interlingual translation, the translator makes use of synonyms in order to get the ST
message across. This means that in interlingual translations there is no full equivalence between code units. According to
his theory, 'translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes' (ibid.:233). Jakobson goes on to say that
from a grammatical point of view languages may differ from one another to a greater or lesser degree, but this does not
mean that a translation cannot be possible, in other words, that the translator may face the problem of not finding a
translation equivalent. He acknowledges that 'whenever there is deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplified by
loanwords or loan-translations, neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by circumlocutions' (ibid.:234). Jakobson
provides a number of examples by comparing English and Russian language structures and explains that in such cases
where there is no a literal equivalent for a particular ST word or sentence, then it is up to the translator to choose the most
suitable way to render it in the TT.

There seems to be some similarity between Vinay and Darbelnet's theory of translation procedures and Jakobson's theory
of translation. Both theories stress the fact that, whenever a linguistic approach is no longer suitable to carry out a
translation, the translator can rely on other procedures such as loan-translations, neologisms and the like. Both theories
recognize the limitations of a linguistic theory and argue that a translation can never be impossible since there are several
methods that the translator can choose. The role of the translator as the person who decides how to carry out the
translation is emphasized in both theories. Both Vinay and Darbelnet as well as Jakobson conceive the translation task as
something which can always be carried out from one language to another, regardless of the cultural or grammatical
differences between ST and TT.

It can be concluded that Jakobson's theory is essentially based on his semiotic approach to translation according to which
the translator has to recode the ST message first and then s/he has to transmit it into an equivalent message for the TC.

Nida and Taber: Formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence 

Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence—which in the second edition by
Nida and Taber (1982) is referred to as formal correspondence—and dynamic equivalence.  Formal correspondence
'focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content', unlike dynamic equivalence which is based upon 'the
principle of equivalent effect' (1964:159). In the second edition (1982) or their work, the two theorists provide a more
detailed explanation of each type of equivalence.

Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the closest equivalent of a SL word or phrase. Nida and
Taber make it clear that there are not always formal equivalents between language pairs. They therefore suggest that
these formal equivalents should be used wherever possible if the translation aims at achieving formal rather than dynamic
equivalence. The use of formal equivalents might at times have serious implications in the TT since the translation will not
be easily understood by the target audience (Fawcett, 1997). Nida and Taber themselves assert that 'Typically, formal
correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message,
so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard' (ibid.:201).

Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation principle according to which a translator seeks to translate the meaning of
the original in such a way that the TL wording will trigger the same impact on the TC audience as the original wording did
upon the ST audience. They argue that 'Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change
follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of
transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful' (Nida and Taber,
1982:200).

One can easily see that Nida is in favour of the application of dynamic equivalence, as a more effective translation
procedure. This is perfectly understandable if we take into account the context of the situation in which Nida was dealing
with the translation phenomenon, that is to say, his translation of the Bible. Thus, the product of the translation process,
that is the text in the TL, must have the same impact on the different readers it was addressing. Only in Nida and Taber's
edition is it clearly stated that 'dynamic equivalence in translation is far more than mere correct communication of
information' (ibid:25).

Despite using a linguistic approach to translation, Nida is much more interested in the message of the text or, in other
words, in its semantic quality. He therefore strives to make sure that this message remains clear in the target text.

Catford and the introduction of translation shifts 

Catford's approach to translation equivalence clearly differs from that adopted by Nida since Catford had a preference for
a more linguistic-based approach to translation and this approach is based on the linguistic work of Firth and Halliday. His
main contribution in the field of translation theory is the introduction of the concepts of types and shifts of translation.
Catford proposed very broad types of translation in terms of three criteria:
1. The extent of translation (full translation vs partial translation);
 
2. The grammatical rank at which the translation equivalence is established (rank-bound translation vs.unbounded
translation);
 
3. The levels of language involved in translation (total translation vs. restricted translation).
We will refer only to the second type of translation, since this is the one that concerns the concept of equivalence, and we
will then move on to analyze the notion of translation shifts, as elaborated by Catford, which are based on the distinction
between formal correspondence and textual equivalence. In rank-bound translation an equivalent is sought in the TL for
each word, or for each morpheme encountered in the ST. In unbounded translation equivalences are not tied to a
particular rank, and we may additionally find equivalences at sentence, clause and other levels. Catford finds five of these
ranks or levels in both English and French, while in the Caucasian language Kabardian there are apparently only four.

Thus, a formal correspondence could be said to exist between English and French if relations between ranks have
approximately the same configuration in both languages, as Catford claims they do.

One of the problems with formal correspondence is that, despite being a useful tool to employ in comparative linguistics, it
seems that it is not really relevant in terms of assessing translation equivalence between ST and TT. For this reason we
now turn to Catford's other dimension of correspondence, namely textual equivalence  which occurs when any TL text or
portion of text is 'observed on a particular occasion ... to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text' (ibid.:27).
He implements this by a process of commutation, whereby 'a competent bilingual informant or translator' is consulted on
the translation of various sentences whose ST items are changed in order to observe 'what changes if any occur in the TL
text as a consequence' (ibid.:28).

As far as translation shifts are concerned, Catford defines them as 'departures from formal correspondence in the process
of going from the SL to the TL' (ibid.:73). Catford argues that there are two main types of translation shifts, namely level
shifts, where the SL item at one linguistic level (e.g. grammar) has a TL equivalent at a different level (e.g. lexis),
and category shifts which are divided into four types:
1. Structure-shifts, which involve a grammatical change between the structure of the ST and that of the TT;
 
2. Class-shifts, when a SL item is translated with a TL item which belongs to a different grammatical class, i.e. a
verb may be translated with a noun;
 
3. Unit-shifts, which involve changes in rank;
 
4. Intra-system shifts,  which occur when 'SL and TL possess systems which approximately correspond formally as
to their constitution, but when translation involves selection of a non-corresponding term in the TL system' (ibid.:80). For
instance, when the SL singular becomes a TL plural.
Catford was very much criticized for his linguistic theory of translation. One of the most scathing criticisms came from
Snell-Hornby (1988), who argued that Catford's definition of textual equivalence is 'circular', his theory's reliance on
bilingual informants 'hopelessly inadequate', and his example sentences 'isolated and even absurdly simplistic' (ibid.:19-
20). She considers the concept of equivalence in translation as being an illusion. She asserts that the translation process
cannot simply be reduced to a linguistic exercise, as claimed by Catford for instance, since there are also other factors,
such as textual, cultural and situational aspects, which should be taken into consideration when translating. In other
words, she does not believe that linguistics is the only discipline which enables people to carry out a translation, since
translating involves different cultures and different situations at the same time and they do not always match from one
language to another.

House and the elaboration of overt and covert translation 

House (1977) is in favour of semantic and pragmatic equivalence and argues that ST and TT should match one another in
function. House suggests that it is possible to characterize the function of a text by determining thesituational
dimensions of the ST.* In fact, according to her theory, every text is in itself is placed within a particular situation which
has to be correctly identified and taken into account by the translator. After the ST analysis, House is in a position to
evaluate a translation; if the ST and the TT differ substantially on situational features, then they are not functionally
equivalent, and the translation is not of a high quality. In fact, she acknowledges that 'a translation text should not only
match its source text in function, but employ equivalent situational-dimensional means to achieve that function' (ibid.:49).

Central to House's discussion is the concept of overt and covert translations. In an overt translation the TT audience is not
directly addressed and there is therefore no need at all to attempt to recreate a 'second original' since an overt translation
'must overtly be a translation' (ibid.:189). By covert translation, on the other hand, is meant the production of a text which
is functionally equivalent to the ST. House also argues that in this type of translation the ST 'is not specifically addressed
to a TC audience' (ibid.:194).

House (ibid.:203) sets out the types of ST that would probably yield translations of the two categories. An academic
article, for instance, is unlikely to exhibit any features specific to the SC; the article has the same argumentative or
expository force that it would if it had originated in the TL, and the fact that it is a translation at all need not be made
known to the readers. A political speech in the SC, on the other hand, is addressed to a particular cultural or national
group which the speaker sets out to move to action or otherwise influence, whereas the TT merely informs outsiders what
the speaker is saying to his or her constituency. It is clear that in this latter case, which is an instance of overt translation,
functional equivalence cannot be maintained, and it is therefore intended that the ST and the TT function differently.

House's theory of equivalence in translation seems to be much more flexible than Catford's. In fact, she gives authentic
examples, uses complete texts and, more importantly, she relates linguistic features to the context of both source and
target text.

Baker's approach to translation equivalence 

New adjectives have been assigned to the notion of equivalence (grammatical, textual, pragmatic equivalence, and
several others) and made their appearance in the plethora of recent works in this field. An extremely interesting
discussion of the notion of equivalence can be found in Baker (1992) who seems to offer a more detailed list of conditions
upon which the concept of equivalence can be defined. She explores the notion of equivalence at different levels, in
relation to the translation process, including all different aspects of translation and hence putting together the linguistic
and the communicative approach. She distinguishes between:
 Equivalence that can appear at word level and above word level, when translating from one language into
another. Baker acknowledges that, in a bottom-up approach to translation, equivalence at word level is the first element to
be taken into consideration by the translator. In fact, when the translator starts analyzing the ST s/he looks at the words
as single units in order to find a direct 'equivalent' term in the TL. Baker gives a definition of the term word since it should
be remembered that a single word can sometimes be assigned different meanings in different languages and might be
regarded as being a more complex unit or morpheme.This means that the translator should pay attention to a number of
factors when considering a single word, such as number, gender and tense (ibid.:11-12).
 Grammatical equivalence, when referring to the diversity of grammatical categories across languages. She notes
that grammatical rules may vary across languages and this may pose some problems in terms of finding a direct
correspondence in the TL. In fact, she claims that different grammatical structures in the SL and TL may cause
remarkable changes in the way the information or message is carried across. These changes may induce the translator
either to add or to omit information in the TT because of the lack of particular grammatical devices in the TL itself.
Amongst these grammatical devices which might cause problems in translation Baker focuses on number, tense and
aspects, voice, person and gender.
 Textual equivalence, when referring to the equivalence between a SL text and a TL text in terms of information
and cohesion. Texture is a very important feature in translation since it provides useful guidelines for the comprehension
and analysis of the ST which can help the translator in his or her attempt to produce a cohesive and coherent text for the
TC audience in a specific context. It is up to the translator to decide whether or not to maintain the cohesive ties as well as
the coherence of the SL text. His or her decision will be guided by three main factors, that is, the target audience, the
purpose of the translation and the text type.
 Pragmatic equivalence, when referring to implicatures and strategies of avoidance during the translation process.
Implicature is not about what is explicitly said but what is implied. Therefore, the translator needs to work out implied
meanings in translation in order to get the ST message across. The role of the translator is to recreate the author's
intention in another culture in such a way that enables the TC reader to understand it clearly.