Systematic Translation Theory

Early attempts at systematic
translation theory:
Cowley, Dryden, Dolet, Tytler and

Yan Fù
Abraham Cowley (1618–1667)
In his preface to Pindaric Odes (1640), attacks

poetry that is ‘converted faithfully and word for
word into French or Italian prose’ . His approach
is also to counter the inevitable loss of beauty in
translation by using ‘our wit or invention’ to
create new beauty. In doing this, Cowley admits
he has ‘taken, left out and added what I please’ to
the Odes
Abraham Cowley (1618–1667)
Cowley even proposes the term ‘imitation’

for this very free method of translating. The
idea was not, as in the Roman period, that
such a free method would enable the
translator to surpass the original; rather that
this was the method that permitted the
‘spirit’ of the ST to be best reproduced
John Dryden (1631–1700)
In the preface to his translation of Ovid’s

Epistles in 1680, Dryden (1680/1992: 25)
reduces all translation to three categories:
(1) ‘metaphrase’: ‘word by word and line
by line’ translation, which corresponds
to literal translation;
2) ‘paraphrase’: ‘translation with latitude,

where the author is kept in view by the
translator, so as never to be lost, but his
words are not so strictly followed as his
sense’; this involves changing whole phrases
and more or less corresponds to faithful or
sense-for-sense translation;
(3) ‘imitation’: ‘forsaking’ both words and

sense; this corresponds to Cowley’s very
free translation and is more or less what
today might be understood as adaptation.
Dryden criticizes translators such as Ben

Jonson (1572–1637), who adopts
metaphrase, as being a ‘verbal copier’
(ibid.). Such ‘servile, literal’ translation is
dismissed with a now famous simile: ‘ ’Tis
much like dancing on ropes with fettered
legs – a foolish task.’
Similarly, Dryden rejects imitation, where

the translator uses the ST ‘as a pattern to
write as he supposes that author would have
done, had he lived in our age and in our
country’ (ibid.). Imitation, in Dryden’s view,
allows the translator to become more visible,
but does ‘the greatest wrong . . . to the
memory and reputation of the dead’
Dryden thus prefers paraphrase, advising that

metaphrase and imitation be avoided. This three-
part, or ‘triadic’, model proposed by Dryden was
to exert considerable influence on later writings on
translation. Yet it is also true that Dryden himself
changes his stance, with the dedication in his
translation of Virgil’s Aeneid (1697) showing a
shift to a point between paraphrase and literal
translation:
Étienne Dolet
(1) The translator must perfectly understand the sense and
material of the original author, although he [sic] should
feel free to clarify obscurities.
(2) The translator should have a perfect knowledge of
both SL and TL, so as not to lessen the majesty of the
language.
(3) The translator should avoid word-for-word renderings.
(4) The translator should avoid Latinate and unusual
forms.
(5) The translator should assemble and liaise words
eloquently to avoid clumsiness.
Alexander Fraser Tytler
Tytler (1747–1813) defines a ‘good translation’ as being
oriented towards the target language reader:
That in which the merit of the original work is so

completely transfused into another language as to be as
distinctly apprehended, and as strongly felt, by a native of
the country to which that language belongs as it is by
those who speak the language of the original work.
Alexander Fraser Tytler
Tytler (ibid.) has three general ‘laws’ or ‘rules’.
(1) The translation should give a complete transcript of

the ideas of the original work.
(2) The style and manner of writing should be of the same
character with that of the original.
(3) The translation should have all the ease of the original
composition.
Yán Fù (1854–1921).
Yán Fù states his three translation principles as:

xìn (fidelity/ faithfulness/trueness),
Dá fluency /expressiveness /intelligibility/
comprehensibility) and
yaˇ (elegance/gracefulness).
These concepts became central to twentieth
century Chinese translation practice and theory.
Thank You

Systematic Translation Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Systematic Translation Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Systematic Translation Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Early attempts at systematic

Cowley, Dryden, Dolet, Tytler and

In his preface to Pindaric Odes (1640), attacks

Cowley even proposes the term ‘imitation’

In the preface to his translation of Ovid’s

2) ‘paraphrase’: ‘translation with latitude,

(3) ‘imitation’: ‘forsaking’ both words and

Dryden criticizes translators such as Ben

Similarly, Dryden rejects imitation, where

Dryden thus prefers paraphrase, advising that

That in which the merit of the original work is so

(1) The translation should give a complete transcript of

Yán Fù states his three translation principles as:

You might also like