1. Introduction to Translation
LESSON 1

2. The concept of Translation
Source text (SL) Target text (TT)
in a source language (SL) in a target language (TL)
TRANSLATION STUDIES (TS)
A discipline concerned with the “the complex of problems clustered round the phenomenon of translating and translations” (Holmes, 1988b/2004: 173)

3. Holmes’s Map of Translation Studies

4. Literal vs Free Translation
The distinction between literal (word-for-word) and free (sense-for-sense) translation dates back to Cicero and St. Jerome, and has been discussed ever since.
I not only admit but freely announce that in translating from the Greek – except of course in the case of the Holy Scripture, where even the syntax contains a mystery – I render not word-for-word, but sense-for-sense.
St. Jerome 395 CE/1997: 25
But what are the pros and cons of these approaches?

5. Formal vs Dynamic Equivalence (1/3)
The old distinction between literal and free translation is address by EUGENE NIDA from a different and yet complementary point of view Two types of equivalence Formal Dynamic Equivalence Equivalence

6. Formal vs Dynamic Equivalence (2/3)
FORMAL EQUIVALENCE
Focus on both content and form of the message
Oriented towards the ST structure
DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE
Focus on the function of the text
Oriented towards the need of the receivers
“Principle of equivalent effect”
The relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message Nida, 1964a: 159

7. Formal vs Dynamic Equivalence (3/3)
According to Nida, a successful translation has to:
Make sense
Convey the spirit and manner of the original
Have a natural form of expression
Producing a similar response
Even though dynamic equivalence aims to meet all these requirements, Nida asserts that “correspondence in meaning must have priority over correspondence in style”.
Nida’s contribution was pivotal in leading the way away from the word-to-word equivalence towards a receptor-based approach to translation theory.

8. Semantic vs Communicative Translation
PETER NEWMARK
TRANSLATION
Semantic Communicative
Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original. Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original.
Newmark, 1981: 39

9. Vinay and Darbelnet’s model (1/2)
Vinay and Darbelnet carried out a comparative analysis of pre-existing translations, identifying a series of “strategies” (overall orientations of the translator) and “procedures” (specific techniques used by the translator)
TWO GENERAL STRATEGIES:
Direct translation (what we can define “literal”)
Oblique translation (what we can define “free”)
SEVEN PROCEDURES:
1. Borrowing; 2. Calque; 3. Literal translation; 4. Transposition; 5. Modulation; 6. Equivalence; Adaptation.

10. Vinay and Darbelnet’s model (2/2)
DIRECT TRANSLATION:
BORROWING: taking the word from the SL and maintaining it in TL
CALQUE: when an expression from the ST is transferred literally into the TT
ENG: skyscrapers ITA: grattacielo
LITERAL TRANSLATION: translating word-for-word

11. Vinay and Darbelnet’s model (2/2)
OBLIQUE TRANSLATION:
TRANSPOSITION: changing word class without changing meaning
ENG: to go swimming (verb) ITA: fare una nuotata (noun)
MODULATION: when the TT is rendered from a different point of view that of the ST
ENG: it is not difficult ITA: è semplice
EQUIVALENCE: when two languages describe similar situations by different stylistic or structural means
ENG: it rains cats and dogs ITA: piove a catinelle
ADAPTATION: changing the cultural reference when a situation in the source culture does not exist in the target culture

12. References
HOLMES, J. S “The name and nature of translation studies”, in L. Venuti (ed) The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge. MUNDAY, J Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge. NEWMARK, P Approaches to Translation. Oxford and New York: Pergamon. NIDA, E. A. 1964a. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill. VINAY, J. P. and J. DARBELNET. 1995/2004. “A methodology for translation”, in L. Venuti (ed) The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge.

13. THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
PROF.SSA LAURA LIUCCI