Translation methods and strategies

Translating is not a neutral activity. Phrases such as traduttore-traditore, les belles

infidles abound in literature. Undoubtedly, the central problem of translating can be expressed
in a peremptory tone: whether to translate literally or freely.
At the turn of the nineteenth century, anthropology had a great impact on linguistics.
Cultural anthropology suggested that linguistic barriers were insuperable and that language was
entirely the product of culture. The focus / choice of the translator between the two poles was to
be carefully thought according to the translators orientation towards the social or the individual.
No matter the name it bears, the choice is an ideological one: dynamic equivalence or formal
equivalence (Nida, 1964), communicative or semantic translation (Newmark, 1981),
domesticating or foreignizing translation (Venuti, 1995),
Communicative translation attempts to convey the most precise contextual meaning of
the original. Both content and language are readily acceptable and comprehensible.
Of all these methods, only semantic and communicative translations fulfil the two major
aims of translation: accuracy and economy. Similarities between the two methods are also to be
noticed: both use stock and dead metaphors, normal collocations, technical terms,
colloquialisms, slang, phaticisms, ordinary language. The expressive components (unusual
collocations and syntax, striking metaphors, neologisms) are rendered very closely even literally
in expressive texts while in vocative and informative texts they are normalised or toned down
(except for advertisements).
Scholars, notably House (1977), speak of these two possibilities of choice while attaching
them different labels:
semantic translation: art, cognitive translation, overt (culture-linked) translation,
overtranslation;
communicative translation: craft, functional or pragmatic translation, covert (culturefree) translation, undertranslation.
Cultural components are transferred intact in expressive translation, transferred and
explained with culturally neutral terms in informative translation, replaced by cultural
equivalents in vocative translation. A semantic translation remains within the boundaries of the
source language culture, assisting the reader only with connotations. A communicative
translation displays a generous transfer of foreign elements with an emphasis on force (intended
meaning) rather than on message.
The conclusion to be drawn from here is that semantic translation is personal, individual,
searching for nuances of meaning; it tends to over-translate, yet it aims at concision. On the other
hand, communicative translation is social, it concentrates on the message (the referential basis or
the truth of information is secured), it tends to under-translate, to be simple and clear, yet it
sounds always natural and resourceful. A semantic translation has to interpret, therefore it does
not equal the original. The problem of loss of meaning frequently arises in this case. A
communicative translation has to explain, it is more idiomatic and it is often said to be better
than the original. A semantic translation recognizes the SLT authors defined authority,
preserving local flavour intact. The tuning with the SL author in semantic translation is
marvellously rendered in the following words:
1

The translator invades, extracts and brings home. (Steiner, 1975: 298)
Translation Studies recommend that the overriding purpose of any translation should be the
equivalent effect, i.e. to produce the same effect (or one as close as possible) on the readership of
the translation as on the readership of the original.
Starting with Vinay and Darbelnet (1958/1995), not only a landmark but also a starting point
in the development of translation studies, who view equivalence-oriented translation as a
procedure which replicates the same situation as in the original, whilst using completely
different wording (1995:342). Well-known researchers such as Jakobson (1965); House (1977);
Newmark (1992); Toury (1995) or Chestermann (1997) establish further taxonomies and
particular features of translating methods and strategies
Thus, Jakobson approaches translation theory as equivalence in difference. He envisages a
semiotic approach to language asserting that there is no signatum without signum (ibid: 232),
consequently he suggests three kinds of translation:
Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or paraphrase)
Interlingual (between two languages);
Intersemiotic (between sign systems).
House (1977) approaches equivalence in terms of semantics and pragmatics, claiming that
the source text (ST) and target text (TT) should match each other in function. House postulates
that it is possible to characterize the function of a text by determining the situational dimensions
of the ST. She introduces the concept of overt and covert translations. In an overt translation the
TT audience is not directly addressed and there is no need at all to attempt to recreate a second
original since an overt translation must overtly be a translation (ibid: 189). The theory
postulated by House is mainly based on authentic examples, the author uses complete texts and,
more importantly, she relates linguistic features to the context of both source and target text.
Baker (1992) provides a comprehensive approach to the concept of equivalence. She
investigates the notion of equivalence at different levels, in relation to the translation process.
Thus she distinguishes between:
Word level and above word level equivalence arguing that the translator should pay
attention to a number of factors when considering a single word, such as number, gender
and tense
Grammatical equivalence - regards grammatical categories across languages.
Textual equivalence - the equivalence between a SL text and a TL text in terms of
information and cohesion. Here the author states that it is up to the translator to decide
whether or not to maintain the cohesive ties as well as the coherence of the SL text, based on
three main factors, i.e. the target audience, the purpose of the translation and the text type.
Pragmatic equivalence - implicatures and strategies of avoidance during the translation
process. At this level the role of the translator is to recreate the author's intention in another
culture in such a way that enables the TC reader to understand it clearly.
The equivalent effect also termed equivalent response or in Nidas words dynamic
equivalence can be equated with the readers shadowy presence in the mind of the translator, and
contrasted to formal equivalence, i.e. equivalence of both form and content between the two
texts.