Introduction

Translation is, of course, a rewriting of an original text. The discipline of translation studies brings together work in a wide variety of fields such linguistics, literary studies, history, anthropology, psychology, politics and economics.

  "Modern " translation theory , like current literary theory , begins with structuralism and reflects the proliferation of the age.  In these lectures, the focus will be on the contemporary approaches to translation that began in the mid-sixties and continued to be influential today.

Contemporary Translation Theories
The main concern of translation theory is to determine appropriate translation methods for the widest possible range of texts. It provides a framework of principles, restricted rules and hints for translating texts and criticizing translations. It also provides a background for solving the problems that arise during the process of translation.

  According to Holmes (1991), the ultimate goal of translation theory is to develop a full , inclusive theory accommodating as many elements as it can to explain and predict all phenomena falling within the area of translation.

Roman Jakobson (1959)
Jakobson tries to clarify the point that the meaning of a word or a phrase is a semiotic fact, a linguistic and not a non linguistic phenomenon.  He distinguishes between three types of verbal sign interpretation: (1) "intralingual"  which means transference of verbal signs into other verbal signs within the same language; (2) "interlingual" which means the interpretation of verbal signs into other verbal signs between two languages;  and (3) "intersemiotic" which means an interpretation of verbal signs into verbal and non verbal signs. Jakobson claims that the non-existence of some syntactic patterns in a specific language does not prevent the translator from transferring concepts from one language into others.  For him, loan translation, circumlocution , semantic shifts as well as others are the means that translators can employ to cover " deficiencies " in the target language.

Catford's linguistic Theory of Translation
It deals with the analysis and description of translation process. To him, the theory of translation is a branch of comparative linguistics since it deals with a certain type of relation between languages. It is essentially a theory of applied linguistics.  Catford (1965) defines translation as " the replacement of textual materials in one language (SL) by equivalent textual materials in another language(TL)."  To him , translation can be either full or partial, depending on the extent of the SL text. In a full translation, the entire SL text is replaced by the TL text. In a partial translation, some part or parts of the SL text are left untranslated.  In literary translation, for instance, some lexical items simply get transferred to the TL text for they are regarded as " untranslatable " or for the deliberate purpose of introducing the "local color" into the TL.

  Translation may be total or restricted depending on the levels of language involved in translation. To him, total translation is defined as " replacement of SL grammar and lexis by equivalent TL grammar and lexis with consequential replacement of SL phonology / graphology by ( non-equivalent )TL phonology / graphology. Restricted translation , on the other hand, is performed only at the phonological / graphological level, or at only one of the two levels of grammar and lexis (words).

 Catford classifies translation as " rank-bound" and " un-bound " , depending on the rank in a grammatical hierarchy at which translation equivalence is established. In rank-bound translation , the TL equivalents are always selected at same rank, e.g. word. It is a bad type of translation because the equivalents established at a lower rank may not be appropriate at a higher rank. In un-bound translation , equivalents shunt up and down the rank scale freely.

  Catford makes a distinction textual equivalence and formal correspondence . A " textual equivalent " is any TL text or portion of text which is to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text. A "formal correspondent" is defined as any TL category  which can be said to occupy , as nearly as possible , the same place in the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL.

  Catford states that it is necessary for translation theory to draw upon a theory of meaning; without which certain important aspects of translation cannot be discussed. According to him , meaning is a property of a language. An SL text has an SL meaning, and a TL text has a TL meaning. The formal and contextual meanings of SL and TL items can rarely be the same. There is no one-to-one relationship between grammatical/lexical items and their contextual meanings of any two languages.

  Catford distinguishes between linguistic and cultural untranslatability. Linguistic untranslatability occurs due to the lack of formal correspondence between the source and the target language. For example , in English two distinct morphemes" (nominal) plural" and "(verbal) singular" are represented graphologically by (-s) as in eats and cats. The same morphemes may not be occupying equivalent grammatical phenomenon in another language. Cultural untranslatability arises where a situational feature is completely absent from the culture of which the TL is a part . It produces unusual collocations.  

  To sum up , Catford's approach to translation is purely linguistic and textual. He left out so many contextual factors like the author's and the translator's social and cultural background, his intended audience, his aim in writing or translating the text or the type of the text. In his theory translation equivalence is to be established at the rank of sentence. The discourse levels beyond the sentence have not been taken care of.  

Nida's Theory of Translation (1969)
Whereas Catford's approach to translation is analytic , Nida's approach is intuitive.  His theory falls within the framework of transformational generative grammar and componential semantics. He places an emphasis on the role of the receptor in the judgment of the adequacy of a translation, which is based on his/her intuitive response to it.

  According to Nida, the translator first analyzes the message of the source language into its simplest and structurally clearest forms " kernels" , transfers it at this level, and restructures it to the level in the receptor language which is most appropriate for the audience he intends to reach.

  Nida's processes of analysis are relatively complex , for they involve three different sets of features: (1) the grammatical relationships between the constituent parts, (2) the referential meanings of the semantic units , and (3) the connotative values of the grammatical structures and the semantic units.  

  Grammatical analysis aims at analyzing the SL text into its kernel , or near kernel-sentences and then  finding out how they are related to one another. Thus, all the grammatical relationships between constituent parts are expressed clearly and with ambiguity. Nida suggests the use of other semantically based models such as those developed by Fillmore, Halliday and Langendoen.

Nida finds the semantic theory proposed by Katz and Fodor inadequate because it is much concerned with the resolving of ambiguities.  So he suggests an analysis of referential meaning. To him , one does not translate words , but bundles of componential features.

  It is difficult to analyze the connotative meaning of the message and its stylistic features with the same precision involved in analyzing the referential meaning of semantic units. The connotative meaning is based on the personal and emotional response of the receptor. As receptors belong to different cultural backgrounds , they cannot respond in an identical manner to the original message.

 For Nida In restructuring , one has to consider the problems from three perspectives: (1) the varieties of language or of styles which may be desirable, (2) the essential components and characteristics of these various styles and (3) the techniques which may be employed in producing the type of style desired.  After the process of restructuring has been completed , the translation has to be tested in terms of its accuracy of rendering, intelligibility , stylistic equivalence…etc.

 Nida states that all good translations tend to be somewhat longer than the originals. This is due to the fact that the translator not only states explicitly everything in the original but also makes explicit what was implicit in the SL text.

 According to Nida, the ultimate test of a translation must be based upon three major factors: (i) the correctness with which the receptors understand the message of the original. (ii) the ease of comprehension and (iii) the involvement a person experiences as a result of the adequacy of the form of the translation.  

 To sum up, Nida favors "free" translation which is "faithful" to the content of the message rather than the form. He argues that formal translators who are manly concerned with correspondences such as poetry to poetry , sentence to sentence are more apt to make mistakes misinterpreting the " intent of the author".

 Nida's approach to translation is entirely socio-linguistic and receptor-oriented, taking into consideration contextual or discourse features besides textual or linguistics features. By considering the connotative or pragmatic meaning as the most important one in transferring the message from the SL to the receptor language , Nida propounds a pragmatic theory of translation.  Nida's theory of translation is base on the framework of transformational generative grammar. It considers the SL text and TL text as two surface structures related to each other by back and forward transformations. Nida's theory emphasizes not formal correspondence , but functional equivalence; not literal meaning but dynamic equivalence; not what language communicates , but how it communicates.  

 The limitation in Nida's theory is its exclusive concern with the Bible translation at the expense of other types of texts. Further it depends on the intuitive response and judgment of receptors who may differ with regard to the correctness any translation.

Holmes' Theory of Translation (1970)

Holmes dismisses the traditional notion of equivalence and describes the process of translation in a new light.  He introduces a new terminology and methodology with which to approach the subject.  Holmes adopts the term " metalanguage" . It is a comment on a comment or language turning upon itself.  

  While verse translation is a kind of metaliterature because it comments upon and interprets another text, it also generates a new corpus of metaliterature about its own literariness.  Holmes thus introduces the term " meta poem" to designate a given translated poem.

 Holmes defines four types of translations each relating differently to the original text and belonging to different theoretical traditions.  The first type retains the form of the original , the second type attempts to discern the function of the text in the receiving culture. The third type is content-derivative, taking the original meaning and allowing it to develop into its own unique shape in the TL such as Pound's organic free verse translation of Homer in the first canto. The fourth type as Holmes calls it " deviant forms" not deriving from the original poem at all but deliberately retaining minimal similarity for other purposes, for which Holmes gives no examples.

 For Holmes, the approach of translation is an empirical practice, one which looks  at actual translated texts as they appear in a given culture.  Holmes breaks translation studies down into three areas of focus: (1) the descriptive branch : to describe phenomena of translations as they are; (2) the theory branch : to establish principles by which these phenomena can be explained ; (3) the applied branch: to use the information gained from (1) and (2) in the practice of translation and training of translators.

Lefevere's " Seven Strategies" for Translating poetry
Lefevere (1975) reveals a similar approach to that of Holmes. He attempts a more empirical and objective approach by taking one source text and describing seven different types of translations based on correspondingly distinct methodologies that tend to govern the process of translation.  Each opens up certain possibilities and closes others. (1) phonemic translation which works well in recovering etymologically related words and reproducing onomatopoeia , but shatters meaning. (2) Literal, translation in which the literary value is sacrificed. (3) Metrical translation  may preserve the meter but distorts sense and syntax. (4) Prose version avoids sense distortion  but the poetic resonance of the text is robbed. (5) Rhyming translations are governed by so many restraints that words end up meaning what they do not mean. (6) Blank verse achieves grater accuracy and a high degree of literariness , but the translated versions are sometimes verbose and clumsy. (7) Finally , the interpretation strategy interprets the theme to make the text easier for reception ,but may do so at the expense of structure and texture.

Polysystem Theory and Translation Studies  
Even-Zohar (1978) was the first to introduce the term" polysystem" for the aggregate of literary systems including everything from high or" canonized " forms ( e.g. innovative verse) to low or " non-canonized" forms (e.g. children's literature and popular fiction) in a given culture.  

 Polysystem theorists argue that the social norms and literary conventions in the receiving culture govern the aesthetic presuppositions of the translators and thus influence ensuing translation decisions.  They have expanded the parameters of Holmes and Lefevere to the point where translation theory seems to transcend " legitimate" linguistic and literary borders.  Even-Zohar  say:

It is necessary to include translated literature in the polysystem. … No observer in the history of any literature can