{"id":343,"date":"2026-03-10T16:01:46","date_gmt":"2026-03-10T16:01:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/introducingtranslationstudies\/?page_id=343"},"modified":"2026-07-29T17:27:43","modified_gmt":"2026-07-29T17:27:43","slug":"timeline","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/routledgelearning.com\/introducingtranslationstudies\/timeline\/","title":{"rendered":"Timeline"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Theorists<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Marcus Tullius Cicero<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

106 – 46 BCE<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Roman rhetorician and politician. In his work De optimo genere oratorum<\/em> (46 BCE) he outlines his approach to translation as avoiding the then normal practice of \u2018word-for-word\u2019 translation (see St Jerome<\/a>), which replaced each individual word of the ST with its closest grammatical equivalent in the TL, aiming instead to reproduce the \u2018general style and force of the language\u2019. In Western translation theory Cicero is often identified with the concepts of literal and free translation. \u2018Literal\u2019 translation<\/strong> – \u2018Literal\u2019 translation, as opposed to \u2018free\u2019 translation, is understood as a type of translation that adheres closely to the surface structures of the ST message, both in terms of semantics and syntax. The term \u2018literal translation\u2019 has been used by scholars in different ways. In the 1950s, Vinay and Darbelnet use it as synonym of what they call direct translation and also to refer to one of the three procedures used in direct translation whereas the term \u2018free\u2019 translation is used within the framework of oblique translation (see Vinay and Darbelnet<\/a>) . Antoine Berman on the other hand, uses the term to refer to the \u2018signifying process\u2019 that allows translators to bring the sense of the foreign into the TT (see Antoine Berman<\/a>).\u2018Free\u2019 translation<\/strong> – \u2018free\u2019 translation, as opposed to \u2018literal\u2019 translation, attempts to recreate a text that sounds natural in the TL and therefore does not necessarily adhere closely to the SL elements and structures. (See also \u2018sense-for-sense\u2019 in St Jerome<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Dao\u2019an<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

312 – 385<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Buddhist monk who undertook the translation of the Sanskrit Sutras. In the third preface to the translation of the Praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101<\/em> (382 CE), he identified the shiben<\/em> (\u2018losses\u2019, where meaning was subject to change in translation), and the buyi<\/em> (\u2018difficulties\u2019 or \u2018not deviating from the text\u2019). D\u00e0o\u2019\u0101n\u2019s writings were very influential to many, including the translator and commentator Kum\u0101raj\u012bva.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

St Jerome<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

395<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Theologian and historian who in 395 completed his translation of the Bible commissioned by Pope Damasus. This would later become known as the Latin Vulgate<\/em>. As a basis for it, St Jerome took not only the Greek Septuagint, the traditional reference, but also the Hebrew version of the Bible, in what was a controversial decision at the time (see Greek Septuagint<\/a>). Thus, St Jerome was the first to note differences between the two versions. St Jerome explained that he had translated \u2019not \u201cword-for-word\u201d but \u201csense-for-sense\u201d\u2019, therefore setting out the dichotomy that would dominate much of the study of translation until the 20th century. \u2019word-for-word\u2019<\/strong> \u2013 \u2018word for word\u2019 translation, as opposed to its opposite \u2018sense-for-sense\u2019 translation, refers to a form of translation in which a SL word is replaced by the closest TL correspondent (see also \u2018literal translation\u2019 in Cicero<\/a>). \u2018sense-for-sense\u2019<\/strong> – \u2018sense-for-sense\u2019 translation, as opposed to its opposite \u2018word-for-word\u2019 translation, attempts to translate the meaning of the word within its context and within target language requirements. (See also \u2018free\u2019 translation\u2019 in Cicero<\/a>). \u2018fidelity\u2019, \u2018spirit\u2019 and \u2018truth\u2019<\/strong> – The use of these concepts has varied through time. Fidelity<\/strong>, or faithfulness<\/strong>, was dismissed by the Roman poet Horace (65 \u2013 8 BCE) as literal \u2018word\u2013for\u2013word\u2019 translation. However, at the end of the seventeenth century \ufb01 trans had come to be identi\ufb01ed with faithfulness to the meaning rather than the words. Spirit<\/strong> similarly has been used in various ways: the Latin word spiritus denotes creative energy or inspiration, proper to literature, but St Augustine (354-430 CE) used it to mean the Holy Spirit of God, and his contemporary St Jerome employed it in both senses. Much later, spirit lost the religious sense and was used in the sense of the creative energy of a text or language. For St Augustine, spirit and truth<\/strong> (Latin veritas) were intertwined, with truth having the sense of \u2018content\u2019; for St Jerome, truth meant the authentic Hebrew Biblical text to which he returned in his Latin Vulgate translation. In the twelfth century, that truth became fully equated with \u2018content\u2019.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Leonardo Bruni<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1369 – 1444<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Italian humanist who translated philosophical works of the Classical Greek and Latin authors and occupied high ecclesiastical office. Bruni placed strong emphasis on retaining the style of the original author, which he saw as an amalgam of the order and rhythm of the words and the \u2018polish and elegance\u2019 of the original. He felt that this was the only correct way to translate.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Martin Luther<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1483 – 1546<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

German priest and theologian who was a leading figure of the Protestant Reformation in Europe. He translated first the New Testament (1522) and later the Old Testament (1534) into East Central German, which went a long way to reinforcing that form of the German language as standard. To the accusation that he had altered the Holy Scriptures in his translations, he countered by saying that he was translating into \u2018pure, clear German\u2019 and rejected a \u2018word-for-word\u2019 translation (see St Jerome<\/a>) strategy since it would be unable to convey the same meaning as the ST. Protestant Reformation<\/strong> \u2013 European Christian reform movement of the early 16th century that objected to some of the established doctrines, rituals and structure of the Catholic Church. The Protestant movement challenged the Church control over thinking and religion through the translation of the Latin version of the Bible into vernacular languages. It was preceded and influenced by the European Humanist movement of the 14th and 15th centuries, which advocated the recovery of classical Latin and Greek and their secular writers. The translation of any book which diverged from the Church\u2019s interpretation could be considered heretical, being censured or banned, and the translators ran the risk of entering into conflict with the Church. Such was the case of Tyndale and Dolet and Martin Luther, a crucial figure in the Reformation (see also William Tyndale<\/a> and \u00c9tienne Dolet<\/a>) . The Protestant Reformation was to lead to a huge schism within Christianity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

William Tyndale<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1494 – 1536<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

English scholar and translator, he was said to have mastered ten languages, including Hebrew. His English Bible, produced in exile, was later used as the basis for the Geneva Bible (1560) and King James Version (1611). It was banned and copies confiscated on the orders of King Henry VIII. Tyndale was abducted, tried for heresy and executed in the Netherlands in 1536.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

\u00c9tienne Dolet<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1509 – 1546<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

French scholar and translator. In his 1540 manuscript La mani\u00e8re de bien traduire d\u2019une langue en aultre<\/em> he set out \ufb01ve principles of the process of translation in order of importance. He was condemned by the theological faculty of Sorbonne in 1546, apparently for adding, in his translation of one of Plato\u2019s dialogues, the phrase rien du tout<\/em> (\u2018nothing at all\u2019) in a passage about what existed after death. This led to the accusation that Dolet did not believe in immortality and he was burned at the stake.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

John Dryden<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1631-1700<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

English poet and translator. In the preface to his translation of Ovid\u2019s Epistles<\/em> in 1680, Dryden reduces all translation to three categories: (1) metaphrase<\/strong>, or \u2018word by word and line by line\u2019 translation, which corresponds to literal translation; (2) paraphrase<\/strong>: \u2018[where the author\u2019s] words are not so strictly followed as his sense\u2019 and which this more or less corresponds to faithful or sense-for-sense translation; and (2) imitation<\/strong>, a free adaptation (see \u2018literal translation\u2019 in Cicero<\/a> and word-for-word and sense-for-sense translation in St Jerome<\/a>) .<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Alexander Tytler (Lord Woodhouselee)<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1747-1813<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Scottish historian and professor. His treaty \u2018Essay on the principles of translation<\/em>\u2019 (1790) constitutes one of the \ufb01rst comprehensive and systematic studies of translation. Tytler de\ufb01nes a \u2018good translation\u2019 as being oriented towards the target language reader and set out three general \u2018laws\u2019<\/strong> or rules that should guide a good translation: (1) it should fully represent the ideas of the original, (2) it should render the style of the original and (3) should have the ease of the original composition.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Friedrich Schleiermacher<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1768-1834<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

German theologian and philosopher. In his seminal lecture \u00dcber die verschiedenen Methoden des \u00dcbersetzens<\/em> \u2018On the different methods of translating\u2019 he expounded a Romantic approach to interpretation based not on absolute truth but on the individual\u2019s inner feeling and understanding. He distinguished two types of translator: Dolmetscher and \u00dcbersetzer. Schleiermacher considers there to be only two paths open for the \u2018true\u2019 translation: to move the writer to the reader or to move the reader to the writer, Schleiermacher\u2019s preferred approach. In order to achieve this, the translator must adopt an \u2018alienating\u2019, rather than a \u2018naturalizing\u2019 method. Schleiermacher\u2019s influence has been considerable (see Venuti<\/a> and Walter Benjamin<\/a> and hermeneutics). Dolmetscher<\/strong> and \u00dcbersetzer<\/strong>– According to Schleiermacher, a \u2018Dolmetscher\u2019 works on commercial texts, whereas an \u2018\u00dcbersetzer\u2019 works on scholarly and artistic texts. \u2018alienating\u2019<\/strong> or \u2018foreignizing\u2019 is described by Schleiermacher as a method of translation in which the value of the foreign is emphasised by \u201cbending\u201d TL word-usage to try to ensure faithfulness to the ST \u2018naturalizing\u2019<\/strong> \u2013 The second method of translation described by Schleiermacher, by which the foreign text is brought in line with the typical patterns of the TL.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Francis William Newman<\/strong> and Matthew Arnold<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1805-1897 | 1822-1888<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Classics scholars in Victorian Britain who engaged in a public and acrimonious debate over the preferred strategy for the translation of Homer. Newman sought to emphasize the foreignness of the work by a deliberately archaic (or mock-archaic) translation that set itself against the prevailing translation practice of the day. This was opposed by Matthew Arnold, who criticized Newman\u2019s poor usage and advocated a more transparent translation method that paid homage to the grand style of Homer. According to Arnold, whose argument won the day, scholars are the only ones quali\ufb01ed to evaluate the effect of a translation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Y\u00e1n F\u00f9<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1854-1921<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Chinese thinker and translator who proposes three translation principles of x\u00ecn<\/em> (\ufb01delity \/ faithfulness \/ trueness), d\u00e1<\/em> (fluency \/ expressiveness \/ intelligibility \/ comprehensibility) and y\u0103<\/em> (elegance \/ gracefulness). These concepts became central to much twentieth-century Chinese translation practice and theory, even if they have since been criticized by more linguistic theorists (see \u2018fidelity\u2019, \u2018spirit\u2019 and \u2018truth\u2019 in St Jerome<\/a>) .<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Walter Benjamin<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1892-1940<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Literary critic and essayist, philosopher and translator. Benjamin saw language as magical and its mission to reveal spiritual content. In his seminal essay \u2018The Task of the Translator\u2019 (1923), he suggests that translation serves to \u2018express the central reciprocal relationship between languages\u2019, not by seeking to be the same as the original but by bringing together the two different languages in a \u2018pure\u2019 and higher language. The strategy to achieve this is through literalism which allows the pure language to shine through.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Jean Paul Vinay<\/strong> and Jean Darbelnet<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1910-1999 | 1904-1990<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

In their Stylistique compar\u00e9e du fran\u00e7ais et de l\u2019anglais<\/em> (1958, Comparative Stylistics of French and English<\/em>, 1995) they carried out a comparative stylistic analysis of French and English, noting differences between the languages and translation shifts and identifying different translation \u2018strategies\u2019 and \u2018procedures\u2019. Vinay and Darbelnet described two different strategies for translation: Direct and Oblique translation. They also classified the procedures that occur in the process of translation and the constraints of \u2018servitude\u2019 and \u2018option\u2019. Direct and Oblique translation:<\/strong> According to Vinay and Darbelnet, direct translation occurs when two languages show close correspondence in terms of lexis and structure. Oblique translation applies when restructuring is involved. (compare with literal translation and free translation in Cicero<\/a>). These two strategies cover between them seven translation procedures: 1 Direct translation uses the procedures of Borrowing, Calque and Literal translation. 2 Oblique translation covers the procedures of Transposition, Modulation, \u00c9quivalence and Adaptation. These categories operate at different levels of language: the lexicon, the syntactic structures and the message. \u2018Servitude\u2019 and \u2018option\u2019:<\/strong> In Vinay and Darbelnet\u2019s model, \u2018servitude\u2019 refers to the obligatory transpositions and modulations due to a difference between the two language systems, whereas \u2018option\u2019 refers to non-obligatory changes that may be due to the translator\u2019s own style and preferences, or to a change in emphasis. It is \u2018option\u2019, according to Vinay and Darbelnet, that should be the translator\u2019s main concern. Translation strategies and procedures<\/strong> In the technical sense a strategy is an overall orientation of the translator (e.g. towards \u2018free\u2019 translation or \u2018literal\u2019 translation [see in Cicero<\/a>], towards the TT or ST, towards \u2018domestication\u2019 or \u2018foreignization\u2019 [see Venuti<\/a><\/em>]) whereas a procedure<\/strong> is a specific technique or method used by the translator at a certain point in a text (e.g. The borrowing of a word from the SL, the addition of an explanation or a footnote in the TT).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Roman Jakobson<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1896-1982<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Russian-American structural linguist. In his paper \u2018On linguistic aspects of translation\u2019 (1959\/2004), he describes three categories of translation: intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic. Working from the relationship between signifier and signified set out by Saussure, he examines the problem of equivalence in meaning between words of different languages. Intralingual, interlingual<\/strong> and intersemiotic translation:<\/strong> Three categories of translation described by Jakobson (1959\/2004): \u2018Intralingual\u2019 translation, or \u2018rewording\u2019, is an interpretation of verbal signs by other signs in the same language. For example, a rewording of an expression in Spanish from a Spanish source text. \u2018Interlingual\u2019 translation, or \u2018translation proper\u2019 is \u2018an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language\u2019. For example, a translation of a text from Arabic to Mandarin. Intersemiotic\u2019 translation is the \u2018interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of non verbal-signs systems\u2019. For example, a book adapted as a film. Equivalence in meaning <\/strong>\u2013 for Jakobson, a key issue in translation is equivalence in meaning between \u2018code-units\u2019 of different languages or \u2018sign systems\u2019. Because each language is a different system, full equivalence between code units in ST and TT is not usually possible (e.g., be in English, sein<\/em> in German, etc., breaks down into ser<\/em> and estar <\/em>in Spanish and is absent in Russian and Arabic). Such cross-linguistic systemic differences do not mean that a message is necessarily untranslatable into another verbal language, just that some adjustment needs to be made using translation procedures (see \u2019Translation strategies and procedures\u2019 in Vinay and Darbelnet<\/a>). Equivalence is a recurrent, important and at times controversial concept in modern translation theory (see also Formal and dynamic equivalence and Equivalent effect in Nida and Equivalence in Koller<\/a>). Ferdinand de Saussure<\/strong> (1857-1913) \u2013 Swiss linguist whose seminal work led to the establishment of semiology and structural linguistics. His Course in General linguistics<\/em> (published posthumously in 1916) analyses language as a formal system of signs. It is divided into two components: langue<\/em>, which refers to the abstract system internalized by a given speech community, and parole<\/em>, the individual acts of speech that put language into practice. The linguistic sign<\/em> is composed of the signifier<\/em> and the signified<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Ji\u0159\u00ed Lev\u00fd<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1926-1967<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Literary and translation theoretician born in Slovakia (then part of Czechoslovakia), whose work is linked to the tradition of the Prague School of structural linguistics. In his book Um\u011bn\u00ed pr\u011bkladu<\/em> (1963), known in western Europe through its German translation Die literarische \u00dcbersetzung: Theorie einer Kunstgattung<\/em> (Lev\u00fd 1969) and now translated into English as The Art of Translation<\/em> (2011), he introduces the literary aspect of the \u2018expressive function\u2019 or style of a text. Paying special attention to poetry in his analysis, he sees literary translation as both a reproductive and a creative labour with the goal of equivalent aesthetic effect (see also \u2018Equivalent effect\u2019 in Nida<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Eugene Nida<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1914-2011<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

American Baptist minister, linguist and translator, he had enormous experience organizing the translation of the Bible into indigenous languages. He applied analytical concepts from Noam Chomsky\u2019s generative-transformational grammar in his \u2018scientific\u2019 approach towards translation theory and lexical meaning (Nida 1964, Nida and Taber 1969\/1974). Nida described two types of equivalence in translation: formal and dynamic equivalence. For Nida, the success of a translation depended above all on achieving an equivalent effect. Lexical meaning<\/strong> \u2013 Nida analyses three types of meaning: (1) linguistic meaning (the relationship between different words, for example, his return<\/em> may mean when he returned. <\/em>(2) referential or denotative meaning, which is the dictionary meaning of a word. (3) connotative or emotive meaning, the associations a word may have. So, he went to France<\/em> and he swanned off to France<\/em> may have the same referential meaning but the connotative meaning is different, the latter suggesting a negative view of what he has done. Formal<\/strong> and dynamic equivalence<\/strong> and equivalent effect<\/strong> These concepts represent two general orientations proposed by Nida (1964). Formal equivalence is focused on the message of the ST, which produces a TT which follows the content and the linguistic structures as closely as possible. In dynamic equivalence, the message of the ST is transferred in such a way that the effect on the receptor is as similar as possible to the effect on the ST reader (known as the principle of equivalent effect). This requires the translator to adjust the text to the target culture. This move towards a receptor-oriented approach represented a radical departure from \u2018free\u2019 and \u2018literal\u2019 translation (see Cicero<\/a>). In Nida and Taber (1969\/74), \u2018formal correspondence\u2019 is used in place of \u2018formal equivalence\u2019 and \u2018functional equivalence\u2019 in place of \u2018dynamic equivalence\u2019. (See also Equivalence in meaning in Jakobson<\/a> and Equivalence in Koller<\/a>) Noam Chomsky<\/strong> American linguist and cognitive scientist. His generative-transformational grammar of the 1950s-60s considers language to be a body of knowledge innate and universal to all. Sentences and structures are analysed as a series of related levels governed by rules that move from deep structure through transformational rules to a surface structure.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

John C. Catford<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1917-2009<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

In his book A Linguistic Theory of Translation<\/em> (1965), Catford applies advances in linguistics to translation by following the linguistic model of Firth and Halliday (see House<\/a>) . Catford distinguishes between formal correspondence and textual equivalence in translation, two concepts that will later be developed by Koller (see separate entry for Koller<\/a>). Catford also makes a detailed description of the translation shifts that take place in the translation process. Formal correspondence and textual equivalence:<\/strong> Catford defines \u2018formal correspondent\u2019 in translation as \u2018any TL category (unit, class, element of structure, etc.) which can be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the “same” place in the “economy” of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL\u2019(Catford 1965: 27), whereas \u2018textual equivalent\u2019 refers to \u2018any TL text or portion of text which is observed. . . to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text\u2019 (ibid.). (See Equivalence in meaning in Jakobson<\/a>). Translation shifts:<\/strong> Catford coined the term to describe \u2018departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from SL to TL\u2019. He considers two kind of shifts (a) level shifts (when something is expressed by grammar in one language and by lexis in another) and (b) category shifts, these later subdivided into structural, class, unit (or rank) and intrasystem shifts. (See also Vinay and Darbelnet<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Katharina Reiss<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1971<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

German linguist and translation scholar whose work views the text rather than the word or sentence as the level at which communication is achieved and equivalence (see Equivalence in Nida<\/a> and Koller<\/a>) must be sought. Based on Karl B\u00fchler\u2019s earlier categorization of the three functions of language, Reiss formulated a functional model of genre and text type which describes three types of text: informative, expressive and operative. Each of these text types requires a different type of translation method and the translation of the predominant function of the ST should be the determining factor guiding the translation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

James S. Holmes<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1924-86<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Dutch-based scholar who named and defined the field of translation studies as a distinctive discipline. Holmes put forward an overall framework, describing what translation studies should cover, comprising two branches: 1.the \u2018pure\u2019 branch, subdivided into a \u2018descriptive\u2019 branch (which deals with the description of what happens in translation and is known as Descriptive Translation Studies [see Descriptive translation Studie<\/a>s and Gideon Toury<\/a>]), and the \u2018theoretical\u2019 branch (which deals with the establishment of general principles to explain and predict translation phenomena) ;2.an \u2018applied\u2019 branch (which refers to translator training, tools and criticism).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

George Steiner<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1975<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Literary critic, essayist and academic. In his influential book After Babel<\/em> (1975) Steiner approaches translation from the point of view of hermeneutics. Steiner proposes a totalising model, which he terms hermeneutic motion. Hermeneutics<\/strong> \u2013 Term derived from the Greek verb hermeneuein<\/em> meaning to interpret<\/em>. Originally used to refer to the interpretation of the Bible, the German Romantics of the eighteenth and nineteenth century widened its use to refer to the theory, methodology and processes involved in interpreting all types of text with the aim of discovering its meaning. It focuses on how the recovery of meaning is influenced by the fact that texts are distant in time and culture. In translation, it was George Steiner who advanced the application of hermeneutics. Hermeneutic motion<\/strong> – Based on hermeneutic theories, and on a conception of translation not as a science but as an \u2018exact art\u2019, George Steiner proposes the model of hermeneutic motion to recover ST meaning and transfer it to the TT. It comprises four stages: (1) trust (in which the translator believes there is meaning in the ST); (2) aggression (in which the translator \u2018enters\u2019 the text, extracts the meaning and takes it away); (3) incorporation (in which the meaning is brought into the TT); and (4) compensation (which compensates for the loss of the ST).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Juliane House<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1977<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

House\u2019s model of translation quality assessment starts from a criticism of \u2018Skopos\u2019 theory and other approaches oriented towards the target audience because of their neglect of the ST (see \u2018Skopos\u2019 Theory<\/a> and Hans J. Vermeer<\/a>). This leads to the classification of two different types of TT: overt translation and covert translation. Translation quality assessment<\/strong> – House bases her model on comparative ST\u2013TT analysis, leading to the assessment of the quality of the translation, highlighting \u2018mismatches\u2019 or \u2018errors\u2019. Drawing on Halliday\u2019s systemic functional grammar, it is centred on a Register analysis of both ST and TT according to Field, Tenor and Mode. Overt translation and covert translation<\/strong> – For Juliane House, an \u2018overt translation\u2019, such as the translation of a novel, does not present itself as an original text to the TT audience – its status as a translation is clear. In \u2018covert translation\u2019, for example a user\u2019s manual for a product, a TT has an equivalent function to the ST in its discourse environment. Both ST and TT address their respective receivers directly. Anything which might remind the target audience of the origin and discourse environment of the ST passes through a \u2018cultural filter\u2019. According to House, the distinction overt-covert translation is a cline rather than a pair of binary opposites: a text can be more, or less, covert\/overt. Both concepts can be traced back to Schleiermacher\u2019s alienating and naturalizing approaches (see Schleiermacher<\/a>; also compare with Foreignization and Domestication in Venuti<\/a>). Michael A. K. Halliday<\/strong> – Halliday\u2019s systemic functional grammar (SFL) is geared to the study of language as social semiotic. It sees meaning in the writer\u2019s linguistic choices and systematically relates these choices to a wider sociocultural framework. The sociocultural environment or \u2018Context of Culture\u2019 is the highest level, and in part conditions the genre<\/strong>, understood in SFL as the conventional text type that is associated with a speci\ufb01c communicative function. Genre itself helps to determine other elements in the systemic framework such as Register<\/strong>, in SFL a technical term that links the variables of social context to language choice and comprises three elements: (1) Field<\/strong>: what is being written about, e.g. the price for a delivery of goods; (2) Tenor<\/strong>: who is communicating and to whom, e.g. a sales representative to a customer; and (3) Mode<\/strong>: the form of communication, e.g. written or spoken, formal or informal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Itamar Even-Zohar<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1978<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Israeli scholar based in Tel Aviv who in the 1970s developed the polysystem theory of translation which moves away from the isolated study of individual texts towards the study of translation within the cultural and literary systems in which it functions (See separate entry for Polysystem theory<\/a>; see also Toury<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Werner Koller<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1979<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

German translation theorist based in Norway. He proposes a hierarchy of five types of equivalence according to the communicative situation. Equivalence<\/strong> refers to the translational relationship between a ST unit and a TT unit and corresponds to Saussure\u2019s concept of parole<\/em> (see Saussure in Jakobson<\/a>). For Koller, equivalence needs to be arranged hierarchically. He identifies five types of equivalence (denotative, connotative, text-normative, pragmatic and formal). This is a more detailed categorization than Nida\u2019s formal and dynamic equivalence. (See \u2018Formal and dynamic equivalence\u2019 in Nida<\/a>) Correspondence<\/strong> A concept from contrastive linguistics that describes the resemblance and difference between words and structures in their linguistic forms. In Koller\u2019s model, correspondence falls within the field of contrastive linguistics, which compares two language systems, and describes differences and similarities contrastively using Saussure\u2019s concept of langue<\/em> (see Saussure in Jakobson<\/a>). Examples given by Koller are the identification of false friends and signs of interference.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Gideon Toury<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1980<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Israeli scholar who worked with Even-Zohar in Tel-Aviv and built on polysystem theory to develop a general theory of translation (see Itamar Even-Zohar<\/a> and Polysystem theory<\/a>). Toury is the founder of the branch of empirical Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) with the aim of \u2018reconstructing\u2019 the norms that are in operation in the translation process through the cumulative identification of norms, of probabilistic \u2018laws\u2019 or \u2018universals of translation\u2019 (see also Descriptive Translation Studies<\/a>). Norms of translation<\/strong> \u2013 term developed by Toury to refer to regularities of the translation behaviour as determined by observation of translation products and processes and the identification of tendencies. In Toury\u2019s theory, it is a non-prescriptive concept and is said to occupy a point on a continuum of \u2018socio-cultural cosntraints\u2019 between two extremes of idiosyncracies and \u2018absolute rules\u2019. Toury proposes the identification of three different kind of norms: (1) initial (concerning the translator\u2019s orientation toward the norms of the ST and the norms of the TT, see \u2018adequate\u2019\/\u2018acceptable\u2019 translation), (2) preliminary (relating to the translation process, such as translation policy and directness of translation) and (3) operational (matricial and text-linguistic norms) (see also Andrew Chesterman<\/a>) Adequate and acceptable translation<\/strong>. If a translation oscillates towards the ST, then the TT will be \u2018adequate\u2019; if the target culture norms prevail, then the TT will be \u2018acceptable\u2019. Poles of adequacy and acceptability are on a continuum since no translation is ever totally adequate or totally acceptable. Translation shifts<\/strong> \u2013 For Toury, shifts are inevitable, norm-governed and \u2018a true universal of translation\u2019. These may be obligatory and non-obligatory (see \u2018servitude\u2019 and \u2018option\u2019 in Vinay and Darbelnet<\/a>), the latter being of greater interest since they reveal the choices made by the translator (see Vinay<\/a> and Darbelnet and Catford<\/a>). Toury refers to the use of a hypothetical intermediate invariant or tertium comparationis against which to gauge translation shifts. Translation equivalence<\/strong> – A concept developed by Toury for Descriptive Translation Studies. For Toury, it is a \u2018functional\u2013relational concept\u2019 different from the traditional notion of equivalence (compare with the concept of equivalence in Jakobson, Nida and Koller). As in functional theories, equivalence is assumed between a TT and a ST. Analysis does not then focus prescriptively on whether a given TT or TT-expression is \u2018equivalent\u2019 to the ST or ST-expression. Instead it focuses on how the assumed equivalence has been realized and as a tool for uncovering the decision-making process and the factors that have shaped the translation. \u2018laws\u2019 of translation<\/strong> \u2013 Within the framework of Descriptive Translation Studies, Toury aims to establish probabilistic laws of translation through the identification of norms of translation. He proposes two laws: (1) the law of growing standardization (stating that potential TL choices are sometimes ignored) and (2) the law of interference (which states that the lexical syntactic form of the ST influences the TT and produces non-normal patterns). Pym (\u2018On Toury\u2019s laws and how to translate\u2019, 2008) suggests resolving the apparent contradiction between the two by stressing that the use of one rather than the other will depend on the socio-historical conditions under which translation occurs. Universals of translation<\/strong> \u2013 Term used to refer to features that are considered to characterize translated language and texts in whatever language pair, such as lexical and syntactic simplification, explicitation and normalization to TL patterns. They are linked to the concept of laws of translation, a weaker form of universal. Because of their capacity to analyse large amounts of data, methods from corpus-based translation studies are useful in identifying patterns that can lead to the deduction of universals (see separate entry for Corpus-based translation studies<\/a>). Tertium comparationis<\/strong> is an invariant against which a ST-TT pair of text segments can be measured to gauge any shift in meaning.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Susan Bassnett<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1980<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Professor of Comparative Literature who founded the Centre for Translation and Comparative Cultural Studies at the University of Warwick, UK. Her many works include the foundational text Translation Studies<\/em>, first published in 1980, and Postcolonial Translation Studies (1999, edited jointly with Harish Trivedi). She is a leading figure in the Cultural turn (see separate entry for Cultural turn<\/a>) . Andr\u00e9 Lefevere<\/strong> (1945-1996) Belgian translation theorist who worked in comparative literature departments in Leuven (Belgium) and the USA (University of Texas at Austin). His work in translation studies, associated with the Cultural turn (see separate entry for Cultural turn<\/a>) , developed out of his strong links with Polysystem theory and the Manipulation School (see separate entries for Polysystem Theory<\/a> and the Manipulation School<\/a>) . For Lefevere translation was a powerful form of \u2018rewriting\u2019 in which ideology plays a pivotal role (see Translation and Ideology<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Peter Newmark<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1916-2011<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

UK-based translation theorist. Newmark\u2019s approach departs from Nida\u2019s receptor-oriented focus (see Nida<\/a>) and rejects the idea that full equivalent effect can ever be fully achieved in translation (e.g., in the case of very old texts). Newmark proposes instead the concepts of semantic and communicative translation. Semantic translation and communicative translation.<\/strong> For Newmark, semantic equivalence attempts to recreate as far as possible the contextual meaning of a ST in a TT within the syntactic and semantic limitations of the TT. This concept is different from literal translation (see Cicero<\/a>) in that it considers and respects context, interprets and even explains when necessary. Communicative translation aims to recreate as far as possible the same effect on its TT receptor as the ST has on the ST audience. It is therefore more TT oriented than semantic translation. The concepts of semantic and communicative translation are similar to Nida\u2019s dynamic and formal equivalence (see \u2018Formal and dynamic equivalence\u2019 in Nida<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Hans J. Vermeer<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1930-2010<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

German linguist and translator scholar who, first on his own in the 1970s and later working with Katharina Reiss (see separate entry for Katharina Reiss<\/a>), developed the skopos theory of translation. In their co-authored book Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie<\/em> \u2018Groundwork for a General Theory of Translation\u2019<\/a>, Reiss and Vermeer aim for a general translation theory for all texts. The \ufb01rst part sets out a detailed explanation of Vermeer\u2019s skopos theory, whereas the second adapts Reiss\u2019s functional text-type model to the general theory.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Antoine Berman<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1942-1991<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

French theorist and translator whose work preceded and influenced Venuti (see separate entry for Venuti<\/a>). Berman deplored the general tendency to negate the foreign in translation by the strategy of \u2018naturalization\u2019, which would equate with Venuti\u2019s later domestication. He used the terms \u2018negative analytic\u2019 and \u2018positive analytic\u2019 to describe the process of translation, negative analytic<\/strong> and positive analytic<\/strong> \u2013 \u2018Negative analytic\u2019 describes the system of textual deformation that conceals or eliminates foreignness in translation. Contrasting to this process is the \u2018positive analytic\u2019 that allows translators to bring the sense of the foreign into the TT through a creative process of literal translation, which for Berman has a more speci\ufb01c meaning (\u2018translation of the letter\u2019) than the conventional use (see Cicero<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Mary Snell-Hornby<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1988<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Austrian-based scholar and translator whose work, Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach<\/em> (1988\/95), reviews and attempts to integrate a wide variety of different linguistic and literary concepts in an overarching \u2018integrated approach\u2019 to translation based on text types.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Christiane Nord<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Nord\u2019s model of translation put forward in her book Text Analysis in Translation<\/em> (1988\/2005) is a detailed functional translation-oriented text analysis model which examines text organization at or above sentence level. Nord\u2019s model enables understanding of the function of the features and the selection of translation strategies appropriate to the intended purpose of the translation. Her model stresses the importance of a \u2018functionality plus loyalty\u2019 principle. She distinguishes two basic types of translation: documentary translation and instrumental translation.;\u2018functionality plus loyalty\u2019 principle<\/strong> – Rather than the fulfilment of TT purpose being the overriding principle in translation, as in \u2018Skopos\u2019 theory (see \u2018Skopos\u2019 Theory<\/a> and Hans J. Vermeer<\/a>), Nord maintains that there also needs to be a relationship between the ST and the TT. Purpose must be compatible with author intention, and loyalty to this intention restricts the possible interpretations made by the translator. documentary and instrumental translation<\/strong> – In Nord\u2019s model, documentary translation functions as a document of a source culture communication. The documentary TT allows the receiver access to the ideas of the ST but in full knowledge that it is a translation. With an instrumental translation, on the other hand, the TT receivers read the TT as though it were a ST written in their own language and the function may be the same for both ST and TT.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Basil Hatim and Ian Mason<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1990<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

In their Discourse and the Translator<\/em> (1990) and The Translator as Communicator<\/em> (1997), Hatim and Mason apply Halliday\u2019s linguistic model to the analysis of translation (see Juliane House<\/a>), paying particular attention to the realization in translation of ideational (e.g. transitivity) and inter-personal functions (e.g. modality) as well as cohesion (see Mona Baker<\/a>). Translation analysis aims to identify marked (prominent or unusual) forms and \u2018dynamic\u2019 and \u2018stable\u2019 elements in a text. More stable elements may be translated literally while more dynamic elements require more creative responses on the part of the translator.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Andr\u00e9 Lefevere<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1945\u20131996<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Lefevere was a Belgian translation theorist who worked in comparative literature departments in Leuven (Belgium) and the USA (University of Texas at Austin). His work in translation studies, associated with the cultural turn (see separate entry), developed out of his strong links with polysystem theory and the Manipulation School. For Lefevere, translation was a powerful form of \u2018rewriting\u2019 in which ideology plays a pivotal role. \u2018Translation as rewriting\u2019: This term was coined by Lefevere to describe the power factors that govern the transformation of literary texts in translation and their reception, acceptance or rejection. These include issues such as power, ideology, institution and manipulation. Lefevere points out that the institutions (e.g. the State, publishers, schools and universities) and individuals in such power positions are the ones that control the consumption of translated literature by the general public. They are described as: (1) professionals within the literary system, who partly determine the dominant poetics; and (2) patronage outside the literary system, which partly determines the ideology.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Mona Baker<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1992<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

In the influential In Other Words<\/em> (1992\/2011), Baker looks at equivalence at a series of levels: at the level of lexical meaning, above word level, at the level of grammar, textual equivalence and pragmatic equivalence (compare with \u2018Formal and dynamic equivalence\u2019 in Nida<\/a> and \u2018Equivalence\u2019 in Koller<\/a>). Baker\u2019s later work includes important work on narrative theory and translation. textual equivalence<\/strong> \u2013 Mona Baker draws on Halliday (see Juliane House<\/a>) for her analysis of thematic (word order) and information structure and cohesion. An important point for ST thematic analysis is that the translator should be aware of the relative markedness<\/strong> (prominence or unusualness) of the structures which can help understand the choices made by speakers and writers when conveying a message. This in turn can help the translator to decide whether it is appropriate to translate using a particular marked form.; pragmatic equivalence<\/strong> \u2013 Pragmatics is the study of language and meaning in communicative situations. Baker considers the major pragmatic concepts of coherence (the overall hanging-together of the arguments of a text) and implicature (the process of implying meaning). Cohesion<\/strong> – This term refers to the grammatical and lexical links which help a text hold together. A single instance of cohesion is termed a tie. In Halliday and Hasan\u2019s seminal model of cohesion in English (1976) there are five types of tie: (1) reference (pronouns, comparatives, demonstratives); (2) substitution and ellipsis; (3) conjunction; (4) collocation; and (5) lexical cohesion through repetition, synonymy, semantic fields, etc.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Lawrence Venuti<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1992<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

American translator and translation theorist. Venuti contests Toury\u2019s \u2018scienti\ufb01c\u2019 descriptive model with its aim of producing \u2018value-free\u2019 norms and laws of translation (see Norms of translation in Gideon Toury<\/a> and Andrew Chesterman<\/a>). Venuti takes into account the value-driven nature of the social and political institutions that influence translation. In this context, he analyses the US and UK hegemony in the publishing industry. Venuti introduced the terms translator\u2019s invisibility and domestication and foreignization to refer to translation practices which are available to the translator. The translator\u2019s invisibility<\/strong> – Drawing on his own experiences as translator of experimental Italian poetry and fiction, Lawrence Venuti introduced the term to describe the translator\u2019s situation and activity in contemporary British and American cultures where translators are \u2018invisible\u2019 because of fluent translation practices which produce an \u2018illusion of transparency\u2019; and because translated texts are typically read in the target culture as if they were originals. Venuti discusses invisibility in relation to two types of translation practice: domestication and foreignization. Domestication<\/strong> \u2013 Venuti introduced the term \u2018domestication\u2019 and its opposite \u2018foreignization\u2019, drawing on Schleiermacher (see naturalizing and alienating in Schleiermacher<\/a>). Venuti considers this strategy dominant in the context of the British and American translation tradition. For Venuti, it is a type of fluent translation practice which minimises the foreignness of the text and leads to the translator\u2019s invisibility. Foreignization<\/strong> \u2013 Venuti introduced the term \u2018foreignization\u2019 and its opposite \u2018domestication\u2019, drawing on Schleiermacher (see alienating and naturalizing in Schleiermacher<\/a>). Foreignization aims to make the receiving culture aware of the linguistic and cultural difference inherent in the foreign text. This is to be achieved by a non-\ufb02uent, estranging translation style. Foreignization may involve lexical and syntactic borrowing and calques, reflects the SL norms and reminds the target culture readers that they are dealing with a translation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Andrew Chesterman<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1997<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

– British scholar based in Finland whose work on norms of translation builds on the theories of Toury (see separate entry for Gideon Toury<\/a>). He has also developed the concept of \u2018consilience\u2019 or coming together of various trends of translation study. Norms of translation<\/strong>: Chesterman suggests a different classification of norms compared to Toury: (1) product\/expectancy norms (which refer to the TT reader\u2019s concept of translation and expectations regarding the TT) and (2) professional norms, including an ethical norm of accountability (the translator accepts responsibility for the translated work), a norm of communication (ensuring satisfactory communication) and of relation (of the ST to the TT). (See also norms of translation in Toury<\/a>). Consilience<\/strong>: Chesterman has proposed the concept of \u2018consilience\u2019, or coming together of various trends of translation study research, which aims to overcome the linguistics-cultural studies divide. He proposes a classi\ufb01cation of four \u2018complementary [though overlapping] approaches\u2019 to research into translation: (1) the textual, (2) the cognitive, (3) the sociological and (4) the cultural.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

Theories \/ Development<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Sutra translations<\/strong> (1st Phase)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

148 – 265<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The translation of Buddhist Sutras from Sanskrit into Chinese spanned many centuries and took place in three phases from around 148 to 1100 CE. The preferred strategy moved from a zh\u00ecy\u00ec <\/em>, word-for-word (see St Jerome<\/a>) rendering that adhered closely to the SL, often used transliteration and was difficult to understand, especially by those without a theological grounding, to a y\u00ecy\u00ec<\/em> translation, a concept associated with free translation (see Cicero<\/a>). Y\u00ecy\u00ec<\/em> was strongly advocated by Kum\u0101raj\u012bva (344-413) who had been greatly influenced by D\u00e0o\u2019\u0101n, a pioneer of this approach (see separate entry for D\u00e0o\u2019\u0101n<\/a>). The third phase was mainly dominated by Xu\u00e1n Z\u00e0ng (602-664), who advocated a translation that replicated the style of the original text.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Sutra translations<\/strong> (2nd Phase)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

256 – 589<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The translation of Buddhist Sutras from Sanskrit into Chinese spanned many centuries and took place in three phases from around 148 to 1100 CE. The preferred strategy moved from a zh\u00ecy\u00ec <\/em>, word-for-word (see St Jerome<\/a>) rendering that adhered closely to the SL, often used transliteration and was difficult to understand, especially by those without a theological grounding, to a y\u00ecy\u00ec<\/em> translation, a concept associated with free translation (see Cicero<\/a>). Y\u00ecy\u00ec<\/em> was strongly advocated by Kum\u0101raj\u012bva (344-413) who had been greatly influenced by D\u00e0o\u2019\u0101n, a pioneer of this approach (see separate entry for D\u00e0o\u2019\u0101n<\/a>). The third phase was mainly dominated by Xu\u00e1n Z\u00e0ng (602-664), who advocated a translation that replicated the style of the original text.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Greek Septuagint<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

300 BC – 100 BC<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures that was adopted by the Christians. Its translation process, which spanned over a long period starting in the 3rd c BCE and ending in the 1st c BCE, took place in stages and has been described as \u2018the first major translation in western culture\u2019 (Tessa Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora, OUP, 2009). Some believed that the translators who worked in the process had divine inspiration. The Septuagint became the basis of old Latin versions of the Bible, collectively known as the Vetus Latina<\/em>, and also of the Coptic, old Slavonic, old Armenian, old Georgian and old Syriac versions of the Old Testament. St Jerome also used it (see St Jerome<\/a>), along with the Hebrew version, for his translation of the Bible.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Sutra translations<\/strong> (3rd Phase)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

602 – 664<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The translation of Buddhist Sutras from Sanskrit into Chinese spanned over many centuries and took place in three phases from around 148 to 1100 CE. The preferred strategy moved from a zh\u00ecy\u012d<\/em>, word-for-word (see St Jerome<\/a>) rendering, that adhered closely to the SL, often used transliteration and was difficult to understand, especially by those without a theological grounding, to a y\u00ecy\u00ec<\/em> translation, a concept associated with free translation (see Cicero<\/a>). Y\u00ecy\u00ec<\/em> was strongly advocated by Kum\u0101raj\u012bva (344-413) who had been greatly influenced by D\u00e0o\u2019\u0101n, a pioneer of this approach (see separate entry for D\u00e0o\u2019\u0101n<\/a>). The third phase was mainly dominated by Xu\u00e1n Z\u00e0ng (602-664), who advocated a translation that replicated the style of the original text.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Abb\u0101sid period of translation<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

750-1250<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

A period of intense translation activity centred in Baghdad, encompassing a range of languages and topics but centred on the translation into Arabic of Greek scienti\ufb01c and philosophical material, often with Syriac as an intermediary language. Initially, a highly literal translation method (see Cicero<\/a>) was adopted, where the Greek word was given an equivalent Arab word and Greek terms were borrowed into Arabic. When this method proved unsatisfactory, there was a shift towards \u2018sense-for sense\u2019 translation (see St Jerome<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACHES IN TRANSLATION<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1923<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

See:
Walter Benjamin<\/a> -1923
George Steiner<\/a> \u2013 1975
Deconstruction<\/a> \u2013 1960 to present date
\u2018Abusive fidelity\u2019 <\/a>– 1985<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Machine Translation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1950<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Translation automatically generated by computer software. It has its origins in the 1950s. Online packages are mostly used for comprehension. However, increasingly more complex packages are being used for dissemination, for example by the European Commission, in order to provide a draft first translation of documents which are then revised by a human translator or editor.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

ANALYSING TRANSLATION PRODUCTS AND PROCESS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1958<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

See:
Vinay and Darbelnet<\/a> -1958
Ian Catford<\/a> -1965
Ji\u0159\u00ed Lev\u00fd<\/a> – 1963
Cognitive models of translation<\/a> \u2013 1991 to present date<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

THE QUESTION OF EQUIVALENCE<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1959<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

See:
Roman Jakobson<\/a> – 1959
Eugene Nida<\/a> – 1964
Peter Newmark<\/a> – 1981
Werner Koller<\/a> \u2013 1979<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

TEXT TYPE AND GENRE<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

197<\/strong>1<\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

See:
Katherina Reiss<\/a> – 1971
Mary Snell-Hornby<\/a> -1988<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

TEXT AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1972<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

See:
Juliane House<\/a> – 1977
Mona Baker<\/a> – 1992
Basil Hatim and Ian Mason<\/a> – 1990
Christiane Nord<\/a> \u2013 1988<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Skopos theory<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1978<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Skopos theory<\/strong> \u2013 The term skopos<\/em> (from the Greek meaning \u2018purpose\u2019) was introduced first by Hans J. Vermeer (see separate entry for Hans Vermeer<\/a>) in the 1970s as a technical term for the purpose of a translation and the action of translating. The skopos<\/em> is stipulated by the client, commissioner or initiator and determines the translation method and strategy to be employed in order to provide a functionally adequate text in the target culture. Skopos theory allows for the possibility that the same text may be translated in different ways according to the purpose of the TT. With such a TT orientation, text quality assessment criteria based on close equivalence to the ST are not necessarily applicable for assessing the TT (see Translation quality assessment in Juliane House<\/a> and Equivalence in Nida<\/a> and Koller<\/a>). Instead, functional constancy between ST and TT is sought and the criteria of coherence (intratextual) and fidelity (intertextual) are applied. Skopos\u2019s consideration of the cultural role of the TT presaged the cultural turn in translation theory (see separate entry for Cultural turn<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

POLYSYSTEM THEORY<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1978<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Polysystem theory was developed in the 1970s by Itamar Even-Zohar borrowing ideas from the Russian Formalism of the 1920s. (see separate entry for Itamar Even-Zohar<\/a>). Even-Zohar considers the overall literary polysystem to be made up of various component systems that interact and evolve dynamically in a hierarchy. Each of the component systems might change its position and influence over time. Even-Zohar emphasizes that translated literature operates in itself as a system within the overall literary polysystem (1) in the way the TL selects works for translation and (2) in the way translation norms, behaviour and policies are in\ufb02uenced by other co-systems. The position occupied by translated literature in the polysystem conditions the translation strategy. Equivalence is no longer considered to be fixed since it varies according to extra-textual socio-historical conditions (see concept of Equivalence in Jakobson<\/a>, Nida<\/a>, Koller<\/a> and Toury<\/a>). Formalism<\/strong>, a critical movement that was developed in Russia between 1910s and 1930s that considered that literary works must not be studied in isolation but as part of a constantly mutating literary system (Yuri Tynyanov). It exerted a strong influence on polysystem theory and on Itamar Even-Zohar. Other theorists of this movement, such as Roman Jakobson, focused on the analysis of the poetic language and later influenced structuralism (see Roman Jakobson<\/a>) .<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

SYSTEMS THEORIES<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1978<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

See:
POLYSYSTEM THEORY<\/a> -1978
Itamar Even-Zohar<\/a> -1978
DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION STUDIES<\/a> – 1980
Gideon Toury<\/a> \u2013 1980
MANIPULATION SCHOOL<\/a> – 1985
Andrew Chesterman – 1997<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION STUDIES (DTS)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1980<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

An empirical branch of the discipline founded by Gideon Toury (see separate entry) that aims to reconstruct the norms that have been in operation during the translation process and to formulate probabilistic \u2018laws of translation\u2019. Toury proposes a three-phase methodology for systematic DTS, (1) identifying the wider role of the sociocultural system, (2) incorporating a textual analysis of the product and (3) drawing a generalization of the patterns identified in the text. The examination of the ST and TT should reveal shifts in the relations between the two that have taken place in translation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Audiovisual translation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1982<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Refers to translation of products, such as films, plays, opera, video games and hypertexts, with a multi-code and multi-channel type of communication, where the verbal component will tend to be highly dependent on the visuals. While the translator mainly operates on the verbal level, the translation process will be frequently constrained by the visual code. Dubbing, voice-over and subtitling are the most common modalities adopted in audiovisual translation. (See separate entries for Dubbing, voice-over and subtitling are the most common modalities adopted in audiovisual translation.) Dubbing<\/strong> \u2013 A form of audiovisual translation adopted in some contexts for cinema and television products (films, documentaries, series, etc) in which the original spoken track is replaced by a fresh spoken track in the TL. In dubbing an important consideration is normally \u2018lip-sync\u2019, the co-ordination of lip movement with the TL spoken word. Voice-over<\/strong> – a translation modality used mainly in informative, non-fictional screen products such as news programmes, advertisements and documentaries. The TL soundtrack is read over the SL words. The SL will normally be only slightly noticeable, apart from the initial and final utterances of the original narrator. Subtitling<\/strong> \u2013 Subtitling has been defined by Henrik Gottlieb as \u2018the rendering in a different language of verbal messages in filmic media, in the shape of one or more lines of written text presented on the screen in sync with the original written message\u2019. These may be: (1) interlingual (which can be \u2018open\u2019, controlled by each individual viewer as in DVDs, or \u2018closed\u2019, an integral part of the film); (2) intralingual (in the same language, mainly for the hard of hearing) and (3) bilingual (in countries such as Belgium where subtitles are provided in two languages). The space and time constraints imposed on intralingual subtitling (normally a maximum of two lines of text and a duration of around six seconds for each caption) lead to a necessary reduction in the number of words on the screen. Other obvious additional constraints on the translation are the image on the screen, which normally cannot be contradicted, and the soundtrack in the source. Surtitling<\/strong> \u2013 In an opera, titles which are projected above or to the side of the stage or, increasingly, on the backs of the seats in front of the viewer. Surtitles are \u2018closed\u2019 (they are not controlled by the viewer) and can be seen by the entire audience. Fansubs<\/strong> \u2013 Term used to refer to the practice of amateur (\u2018made by fans\u2019) subtitling and distribution of \ufb01lms, TV series and other film extracts online and video games. Its practice is controversial as it involves a violation of copyright laws in many countries. It was originally used for the translation of mainly Japanese manga<\/em> and anim\u00e9<\/em> cartoons and the practice has now proliferated thanks to the greater access to and affordability of subtitling software. Video game translation<\/strong> – a blend of audiovisual translation and software localization. One important de\ufb01ning feature is the creativity and originality that is demanded of the translator in order to ensure that the game is entertaining. Such creativity, termed transcreation, often includes the re-naming of elements and characters, the use of neologisms and the deliberate choice of non-standard dialects. Transcreation<\/strong> \u2013 Term used to refer to refer to a strategy of translation that stresses the creativity and transformative nature of the process. Originally, this term was employed by the Indian translator and academic Purushottama Lal (1964) for his domesticating English translations of Sanskrit plays and later used by the Brazilian writer Haroldo de Campos and the Brazilian postcolonial theorist Else Vieira (see Cannibalist translation theories in Students Content from previous editions). In more recent times, it has been used of the creative adaptation of advertisements and videogames.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

THE TRANSLATOR\u2019S ROLE<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1984<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

See:
Lawrence Venuti<\/a> \u2013 1992 to present date
Antoine Berman<\/a> \u2013 1984<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Translatorial Action<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1984<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Justa Holz M\u00e4ntt\u00e4ri\u2019s<\/strong> model of translation which views translation as purpose-driven, outcome-oriented human interaction involving intercultural transfer. Interlingual translation involves a series of roles and players (ie. the initiator, the commissioner, the ST producer, the TT producer, the TT user, the TT receiver) with specific primary and secondary goals. The translation action model focuses on producing a TT that is functionally communicative for the receiver. The Finnish-based German theorist Holz M\u00e4ntt\u00e4ri developed this theory in her work Translatorisches Handeln: Theorie und Methode<\/em> (\u2018Translatorial Action: Theory and method, 1984), taking up concepts from communication theory and action theory.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

The Manipulation School<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1985<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The Manipulation School<\/strong> \u2013 Group of scholars centred in Belgium, Israel and the Netherlands in the 1970s and 1980s who worked in Descriptive Translation Studies (see separate entry). Their key publication was the collection of papers entitled The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation<\/em> (Hermans (ed.) 1985). The group viewed translation primarily as a literary genre which subjected the ST to a degree of manipulation. Lambert and van Gorp (1985) drew on Even-Zohar\u2019s and Toury\u2019s early work (see separate entries for Itamar Even-Zohar<\/a> and Gideon Toury<\/a>) in their proposed scheme for the comparison of the ST and TT literary systems and for the description of relations within them. The Manipulation school subsequently influenced more recent work on translation and ideology (see separate entry for Translation and Ideology<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

\u2018Abusive fidelity\u2019<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1985<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Abusive fidelity\u2019-<\/strong> Term introduced by Philip Lewis (1985), drawing on deconstruction (see separate entry) to denote a radical and risk-taking approach to literary translation. For him, \u2018abusive translation\u2019 is a strong, forceful translation that values experimentation, tampers with usage, seeks to match the multiplicity of voices of the ST by producing its own.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Deconstruction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1985<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Deconstruction<\/strong> – Term introduced in the 1960s by Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), drawing on the work of Martin Heiddeger (1889-1976). Deconstruction dismantles some of the key premises of linguistics, the terms, systems and concepts which are constructed by language, starting with Saussure\u2019s clear division of signi\ufb01ed and signi\ufb01er (see Saussure in Jakobson). It challenges the capacity to de\ufb01ne, capture or stabilize meaning and thus undermines the concept of equivalence of meaning in translation (see Jakobson<\/a> and Nida<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Translation and Gender<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1988<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Translation and gender<\/strong> \u2013 As part of the cultural turn in translation studies and partly as a result of feminist protest movement that developed in Western Europe and North America in the mid-1960s, some scholars have concentrated on the intersection of gender and translation. For example, this has involved criticism of the male-dominated metaphorics of les belles infid\u00e8les<\/em> and has promoted \u201ccommitted\u201d approaches such as the Canadian feminist translation project which seeks to make the female visible in translation. Other scholars have concentrated on the translation of gay writers and texts. (See also Cultural turn<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

CULTURAL TURN<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1988<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Cultural turn\u2019<\/strong> – a term coined by Mary Snell-Hornby in Susan Bassnett and Andr\u00e9 Lefevere\u2019s Translation, History and Culture<\/em> (1990) to refer to a major new development in translation studies (see separate entries for Mary Snell-Hornby<\/a>, Susan Bassnett<\/a> and Andr\u00e9 Lefevere<\/a>) . Rather than being restricted to a transparent and balanced linguistic transaction, translation was perceived as a more complex and power-driven process of negotiation between two cultures influenced by their historical and social circumstances. It drew inspiration from the development of cultural studies from the 1960s onwards.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Cognitive Models of Translation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1991<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Cognitive models of translation examine and explain the processes of translation, through both theories of communication, such as relevance theory and the interpretive model, and through observation and empirical methods, which include \u2018think aloud\u2019 protocol and eye-tracking.; Relevance theory: Ernst-August Gutt draws on relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson 1986), which focuses on the importance of intention in human communication. In his Translation as Relevance<\/em> (1991\/2000), Gutt describes translation as an example of a communication based around a cause-and-effect model of inferencing and interpretation. Translators need to decide if it is possible to communicate the informative intention, whether to translate descriptively or interpretively, what the degree of resemblance to the ST should be, and so on. These decisions are based on the translator\u2019s evaluation of the cognitive environment of the receiver. Interpretive model: Marianne Lederer and Danica Seleskovich put forward the \u2018interpretive model\u2019, initially applied to conference interpreting, which explains translation as an overlapping three-stage process of understanding, deverbalization and re-expression. \u2018Think-aloud\u2019 protocol: A method of investigating the translation process, coming from the field of psychology and developed by Ericsson and Simon (1984). The translator is asked to verbalize his\/her thought processes while translating or immediately afterwards (the latter known as \u2018retrospective protocol\u2019), often with no prompting on content. ;Eye-tracking: A recent methodology used for investigating reading and production processes. Eye-tracking equipment records the focus of a translator\u2019s gaze as they process a text on-screen. It is sometimes combined with the recording of key-strokes made by the translator at the keyboard to help investigate points of greatest cognitive effort. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Postcolonial Translation Studies<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1992<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

This area developed from the 1990s as part of the cultural turn in translation studies and as a result of a cross-over from postcolonial studies (see separate entry on Cultural turn<\/a>). Both postcolonial studies and translation studies look at the issues of power relations and control expressed through language and literature in postcolonial societies. Translation has been seen and studied as an instrument for colonial domination. Thus, scholars such as Gayatri Spivak look at the \u2018politics of translation\u2019 that gives prominence to English and to the other \u2018hegemonic\u2019 languages of the ex-colonizers, and Tejaswini Niranjana describes how translation has played an active role in the colonization process in India, disseminating an ideologically motivated image of colonized peoples and imposing the colonizer\u2019s ideological values. More recent work, such as Paul Bandia\u2019s Translation as Reparation<\/em> (St Jerome Publishing, 2008) has examined the picture in Africa, where translation occurs not only between indigenous and colonial languages but also between colonial languages (notably English and French) themselves. Important concepts are \u2018in-betweenness\u2019, \u2018the third space\u2019 and \u2018hybridity\u2019 (Homi Bhabha) and the multilingual environment of such societies in which translation is an everyday occurrence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Corpus\u2013Based Translation Studies<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1995<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Corpus-based translation studies: A branch of the discipline that draws on the tools and concepts of corpus linguistics, initiated as a lexicographical tool for the Collins COBUILD dictionaries in the 1980s. The \u2018corpus\u2019 (plural \u2018corpora\u2019) refers to an electronic collection of naturally occurring texts, selected and gathered for a specific purpose, which can then be processed and analysed with software to investigate the use and patterns of the word-forms it contains. For translation purposes these may be: (1) parallel corpora (aligned pairs of STs and TTs that are used to investigate translation phenomena); (2) bilingual comparable corpora (similar STs in the two languages which can be used to find specialized terms in the TL); or (3) monolingual reference corpora (collections of STs that can be used to identify common patterns in a language). The major reason for using computer corpora is the quality of linguistic evidence, vastly superior to the analyst\u2019s intuition, particularly on collocations and typical uses of lexical items, and stylistic features. The corpus-based approach links with methodology centred in Descriptive Translation Studies and to analyse typical features of translation, such as universals of translation. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Translation and Ideology<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1996<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Translation and ideology<\/strong> \u2013 Much research from an ideological perspective is interested in uncovering manipulations in the TT that may be indicative of the translator\u2019s conscious ideology or produced by ideological elements of the translation environment, such as pressure from the publisher, editor or institutional\/governmental circles. The disparity in status between languages is also crucial, the more powerful \u2018world languages\u2019 such as English even threatening the survival of certain genres in lesser-used languages (See also Lefevere<\/a>, Hatim and Mason<\/a>, the Manipulation School<\/a>, Translation and narrative theory<\/a>, Cultural turn<\/a>, Translation and gender<\/a>, Postcolonial translation studies<\/a> and The translator\u2019s invisibility in [Lawrence Venuti<\/a>]).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Sociology<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1998<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Sociology of translation<\/strong> \u2013 Study of translation has recently turned to the study of translators. Translators are studied as active agents, drawing mainly on the theory of French ethnographer and sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and his concepts of field, habitus, capital and illusio. Daniel Simeoni (1948-2007) highlights the study of the \u2018translatorial habitus\u2019 (the translator\u2019s \u2018mindset\u2019 or \u2018cultural mind\u2019) which can complement and enhance Toury\u2019s work by focusing on how the translator\u2019s own behaviour and agency contribute to the establishment of norms (see separate entry for Toury<\/a>). Bourdieu\u2019s theorization can help explain how translators and interpreters both take part in and construct \u2018the forms of practice in which they engage\u2019 (Moira Inghilleri, Bourdieu and the Sociology of Translation and Interpreting<\/em>, 2005). (See also Andrew Chesterman<\/a>: norms of translation).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Computer-Assisted Translation Tools (CAT tools)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1998<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Computer-assisted translation tools (CAT tools): A term used to refer to different software applications used by professional translators to assist translation and localization. In particular, translation memory tools work on searchable aligned databases of previous STs and their translations to allow for the extraction of previous translation equivalents and terms. These are used to indicate matches with items in the text on which the translator is working.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Localization<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

2000<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Localization may be defined as the adaptation of a product to the linguistic and cultural expectations of the target \u2018locale\u2019 or geographical region and language in which a text operates. This may also involve, for example, the substitution of cultural symbols as well as the translation of the text. It is often associated with the translation of websites and video games where there are specific spacial constraints and the need to ensure online functionality.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Translation and Narrative Theory<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

2006<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Translation and narrative theory<\/strong> \u2013 Mona Baker\u2019s Translation and Conflict<\/em> (2006) (see Mona Baker<\/a>) draws on the notion of narrative in social and communication theory (e.g. Somers and Gibson, and Fisher) to explain how narratives construct as well as represent the world around us, often in the interests of a political \u00e9lite. Translation and interpreting introduce a new narrative into a text, dependent upon the perspective of those involved. This is illustrated through examples such as the repositioning of participants through paratextual commentary and, at the lexical level, through renaming (e.g.the choice to use either Judea and Samaria<\/em> or West Bank<\/em> in the Middle East). (See also Cultural turn<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

Theorists<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Theories<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Theorists Marcus Tullius Cicero 106 – 46 BCE Roman rhetorician and politician. In his work De optimo genere oratorum (46 BCE) he outlines his approach to translation as avoiding the then normal practice of \u2018word-for-word\u2019 translation (see St Jerome), which replaced each individual word of the ST with its closest grammatical equivalent in the TL,…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-343","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t