COMPONENTS OF TRANSLATION THEORY

Communication of meaning: The first ever view is that translation is the communication of meaning from one language to another. Quoting Dr. Johnson, “ to translate is to change into another language, retaining the sense”. In the study of meaning word is often considered as the symbol or the sign. So Leonard Forster considers translation as the transference of symbols and signs of source language to target language. But words are not independent entities, they have associations and connotations. From among the many possible symbols, the translator will have to choose an appropriate symbol for encoding the meaning. The semiotic and the symbolic views only suggest the complexities of meaning in translation.

Process and product: We tend to look at the translation as the product rather than the process. The theory of translation in last century was mostly ‘product oriented’; it was only the end product that was the essential, not the process. A very naïve way to look at the translated text, it denies the translated text its required autonomy and recognition as a text.

Objectivity/Subjectivity: Can judgments about the text be made objectively? There are various theories to make objective statements about translation, but can the individual translator be put back, can subjectivity be eliminated from the scene altogether? In the same line, is theory the last answer?

Literal/ free: This debate concerns whether the translation should be done literally or can the translator take some liberty and opt for a free translation. This concerns the debate about the degree of the latitude the translator is permitted in representing the source text in translation. This controversy is age old. Beginning with the Arabs, this crucial debate continues in different ways till date.

Meaning and style: According to Tancock, the translator’s job is twofold: a) he must translate the exact meaning of the original text; b) he has to give his reader some impression of the flavor of the original text. While theorists through out have been instrumental in privileging one over the other, ideally both ‘form’ and ‘content’ should be considered equally while translating, and if one goes by what Nida says, that it should be ‘the closest equivalent to the message in the source language, first in meaning and secondly in style’ and ‘though style is secondary to content, it is nevertheless important’. Thus both components are essential and should not be forgotten while theorizing translation.

Interpretation: James Holmes finds all translation as “an act of critical interpretation.” Translation is an interpretative transfer. So no two translation of the same text are identical. The socio-cultural-economic semantic, aesthetic and stylistic aspects of the work are effectively translated only by interpretative techniques of substitution and compensation.

Formal/dynamic equivalence: This brings us to another aspect of translation theories: the reader is at the center. There is a difference between formal equivalence (closest possible match of form and content between ST and TT) and dynamic equivalence (principle of equivalence of effect on reader of TT) and that they are basic orientation rather than binary oppositions. This is also a crucial departure from the endless debate on free and literal translation.

Intent/ empathy of the author: The best translators are often said to be those who are most in tune with the original author. The translator must ‘possess’ the spirit of the original; ‘make his own’ the intent of the SL writer. This is the most popular conception. What is it that prompts the translator to choose a particular text? The personal bearings of the author, along with his intentions and proximity with the text, will always dominate the translation, and not to mention that the resultant text will always have a personal bearing on the text (TT).

Socio cultural context: The intention of the translator adds a second dimension to the process. The translator’s motivations abound up with the socio-cultural-economic context in which the act of translation takes place. The need for translation may be client-driven, or market-driven, or translator-driven. Translation in Malinowsky’s words implies the ‘ unification of cultural context…’ so translation is a kind of cultural bridge between languages and therefore of paramount importance.