In the early years of Translation Studies, Peter Newmark defined translation as a craft consisting in the attempt to replace a written message and/or statement in one language by the same message and/or statement in another language. (1981, p.7, my emphasis. First published 1976). In 1988, Newmark offers another definition of translation:
What is translation? Often, though not by any means always, it is rendering the meaning of a text into another language in the way that the author intended the text. (1988, p.5, my emphasis)
These definitions would not now be considered satisfactory, but they are useful because they show evidence of two very deeply entrenched phenomena in translation theory:
1) the feeling that the translation should somehow be ‘the same’ as the original (related to theories of identity and equivalence) and
2) that the function of a translation is to render ‘the meaning’ behind the source text, in this case expressed as a function of the author’s intention (which brings in the concept of fidelity).
27 years’ academic and professional experience with modern languages, including English, French, German, and Spanish alongside two undergraduate degrees and a Master’s degree in Translation have provided a good foundation for this freelance Translation business.
We are devoted to the weight of words and the power they have to better our world. So, if you are looking for a steadfast, responsive and viable freelance translator, then this platform is right up your alley. We provide language services in a wide variety of industries and for a range of different projects
If you would like to know more about our language services or any other request, then CONTACT US and we will be in touch soonest for further deatils.
Both of these notions were heavily problematized in the second half of the twentieth century (we will have a chance to look into this in more detail over the next couple of weeks). The legacy of the Romantic era (in the UK this is roughly the early nineteenth century) was the conceptualization of the author as primary creator, and the privileging of originality as the criterion for literary worth. This primacy of the author, and the understanding of textual interpretation as a search for authorial intention, was challenged by critical theorists in the twentieth century. Two of the best-known challenges came from two French critics, Roland Barthes, in his essay ‘La mort de l’auteur’ (‘The Death of the Author’, written in 1968, translated into English 1977), and Michel Foucault, in ‘Qu’est-ce qu’un auteur?’ (‘What is an author?’, written in 1969, translated 1979). Barthes argues against the idea of authorial originality, pointing out that texts are always heavily dependent on other texts for composition and interpretation (intertextuality). Foucault posited the ‘author-function’; the author matters not because they are a real person with a creative process, or because they are a text’s originator (though they may be both things), but because our cultural systems and institutional structures require something called an ‘author’ as a means of organizing discourse and attributing value.
If we look at more recent definitions of translation we will see that they steer clear of both the author’s intention and the idea of equivalence:
Translation is a process by which the chain of signifiers that constitutes the source-language text is replaced by a chain of signifiers in the target language which the translator provides on the strength of an interpretation (Venuti 1995, p.17)
Translation is the process of replacing an original text, known as the source text, with a substitute one, known as the target text. (House 2009, p. 4)
A translation may be defined as a text in one language that represents or stands in for a text in another language; the term translation also refers to the act of producing such a text. (Palumbo 2009, p.122)
In the field of languages, ‘translation’ today has several meanings:
(1) the general subject field or phenomenon […]
(2) the product – that is, the text that has been translated […]
(3) the process of producing the translation, otherwise known as translating […]
The process of translation between two written languages involves the changing of an original written text (the source text or ST) in the original verbal language (the source language or SL) into a written text (the target text or TT) in a different verbal language (the target language or TL) (Munday 2012, p.8)
As we can see, these definitions all acknowledge the pair of texts constituting source text and target text. They posit that these texts stand in a relationship of some kind to each other which could be referred to as a relationship of substitution (Venuti, House, Palumbo) or representation (Palumbo). As a rule, however, they steer carefully clear of value judgments, and avoid attempting to define the natureof the relationship between ST and TT. This is as a result of the shift from prescriptiveviews of translation (‘this is how it ought to be done’) towards descriptiveapproaches (‘this is how it is done’; see Toury 1995). Again, we will have an opportunity to explore this later in the unit.
Interlingua Translation provides individually tailored and cost-effective translation services, localisation, post-editing, and transcriptions. Upload your content and ORDER ONLINE
We will help you get a quote for your preferred service using our solutions.
Submit your information below for a free, no-obligation quote.
If you would like to know more about our language services or any other request, then CONTACT US and we will be in touch soonest for further deatils.
Two particularly interesting and useful definitions of translation are provided by Roman Jakobson (1959) and Gideon Toury (1995). Jakobson, working in the Formalist tradition, posits three types of translation:
1) intralingual translation or ‘rewording’ (‘an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language’)
2) interlingual translation or ‘translation proper’ (‘an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language’)
3) intersemiotic translation or ‘transmutation’ (‘an interpretation of verbal signs by means of non-verbal sign systems’).
This is a useful broadening of the object of translation, allowing us to talk about abridgements and localization (e.g. UK to US English) as acts of translation. Jakobson’s formulation does, however, throw up a problem, which is that his definitions of translation also depend on defining the boundaries of what constitutes a language. This gives rise to a possible tautology. As Naoki Sakai (2009) has argued, the act of translation in itself establishes a linguistic boundary between a source language and a target language. If we subtitle regional speech within our own ‘national’ language, we are, de facto, saying that they are speaking a language which is different – hence the vociferous complaints which this often gives rise to when done on television. If we agree with Sakai, then we find ourselves potentially in a rather circular argument where there is no such thing as ‘intralingual’ translation because by definition the act of translation creates a source and a target language…
Toury, in his seminal 1995 book Descriptive Translation Studies and earlier publications, takes a different approach. For him, translation is not a function of the sign system used in the translation, but a function of its reception in the target culture. Toury defines translation as ‘any target-language utterance which is presented or regarded as such within the target culture, on whatever grounds’(Toury 1985, p.20). This includes, therefore, pseudotranslations, or texts which are pretending to be translations (but would in principle not include covert translations whose translated status is perfectly concealed or has been forgotten…).
What we are seeing here, overall, is a shift from source-oriented theories of translation (in other words, how translations reflect the ‘essence’ of a pre-existing text whose primacy is taken as a given) to target-oriented theories of translation, where the functionof the text, rather than its relationship to the ST, becomes the essential element. More on this anon.
We’re going to leave the question of the definition of translation there. It’s a task which is impossible, but we internalize certain common-sense formulations in order to be able to speak about it at all. We can take away from this that in principle, it is beneficial to avoid value judgments and assumptions; translation is the substitution of one text for another. Toury (1995: 33-35) posits three conditions for translated status: that there is a source text; that the process is one of transfer; and that there is a relationship between the two texts. Beyond this, definitions are up for grabs.
The most important thing is that in your own work you are clear in your mind about, and able to justify, the working definition of translation you are using. Any provisional definition is the beginning, rather than the outcome, of translation studies
Interlingua Translation Limited
12 The Weavers, Swindon, SN3 1SE, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2025 Interlingua Translation Limited - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy