Name Naeem Akram

Roll no 19011517-026

Course code TRAN-304

Course Name Art of Translation

Assignment Topic Summary

Submitted to Ms Faria Shaheen

Department CeLTS
It may be useful to distinguish literal from word-for-word and one-to-one translation. Word-for-
word translation transfers SL. grammar and word order, as well as the primary meanings of all
the SL words, into the translation, and it is normally effective only for brief simple neutral
sentences: 'He works in the house - now', iltravaille dans la maison maintenant. In one-to-one
translation, a broader form of translation, each SL word has a corresponding TL word, but their
primary (isolated) meanings may differ. Thus in passer un examen - 'take an exam', the two verb
couplets can be said to correspond with each other, but, out of context, they are not semantic
equivalents. Since one-to-one translation normally respects collocational meanings, which are
the most powerful contextual influence on translation, it is more common than word-for-word
translation. Literal translation goes beyond one-to-one translation in including, say, le courage
and 'courage' as literal equivalents; it is particularly applicable to languages that do not have
definite and/or indefinite articles.

Varieties of Close Translation

Literal translation ranges from one word to one word through group to group, collocation to
collocation, clause to clause, to sentence to sentence. The longer the unit, the rarer the one-to-one
Further, single-word metaphors, extended plural-word metaphors and proverbs. Illustrate a
second figurative semantic scale.

I believe literal translation to be the basic translation procedure, both in communicative and
semantic translation, in that translation starts from there. However, above the word level, literal
translation becomes increasingly difficult. When there is any kind of translation problem, literal
translation is normally (not always) out of the question. It is what one is trying to get away from,
yet one sometimes comes back to it with a sigh; partly because one has got used to the sound of
what at first seemed so strange and unnatural; beware of this. Une tentation cuisante: can you get
nearer than a 'painful' or an 'intense' temptation? 'Burning temptation' is the nearest, it is still not
literal. Literal translation above the word level is the only correct procedure if the SL and TL
meaning correspond, or correspond more closely than any alternative; that means that the
referent and the pragmatic effect are equivalent, i.e. that the words not only refer to the same
'thing' but have similar associations (Mama, 'mum'; le prof, 'the prof) and appear to be equally
frequent in this type of text; further, that the meaning of the SL unit is not affected by its context
in such a way that the meaning of the TL unit does not correspond to it. Normally, the more
specific or technical a word, the less it is likely to be affected by context. Further, a common
object will usually have a one-to-one literal translation if there is cultural overlap, though most
languages have strange lexical gaps (e.g. 'fingers', 'waist', 'knuckles', 'shins'). A term for a
common object sometimes has other common senses ('bank', 'peace') - so that language,
particularly in English with its monosyllables, appears inefficient.

FAITHFUL AND FALSE FRIENDS

However, my main point is that we must not be afraid of literal translation, or, in particular, of
using a TL word which looks the same or nearly the same as the SL word. At school and
university I was told I must never do this, but 'theatre' is theatre is Theater is teatro is teatr; only
in Czech is it divadlo (the same applies to 'music', where the Czech is hudba). The translation of
objects and movements is usually more literal than that of qualities and ways of moving. Many
common adjectives of feeling cut up meaning in their own way, so that we cannot trust a
transparent translation of 'sincere', 'loyal', 'trivial', 'important', 'truculent', brutal'; only one or two
like 'excellent' and ' marvellous' are usually transparent. And again, the more general and abstract
words ('phenomenon', 'element', 'affair') may or may not be translated transparently; there is
often a shift at that abstract level (qualite as 'property') but the translation is still usually one-to-
one. In general, there are more faithful friends than faux amis, and we must not hesitate to use
them, since any other translation is usually wrong. This presupposes that, in context, the
readership of O and T have similar interest and language levels. Otherwise the translation may
well be different.

Many theorists believe that translation is more a process of explanation, interpretation and
reformulation of ideas than a transformation of words; that the role of language is secondary; it is
merely a vector or carrier of thoughts. Consequently, everything is translatable, and linguistic
difficulties do not exist. This attitude, which slightly caricatures the Seleskovitch School (ESIT,
Paris), is the opposite of the one stating that translation is impossible because all or most words
have different meanings in different languages, i.e. all words are culture specific and, to boot,
each language has its peculiar grammar.
Words in Other Context
All the same, we do translate words, because there is nothing else to translate; there are only the
words on the page; there is nothing else there. We do not translate isolated words, we translate
words all more or less (and sometimes less rather than more, but never not at all) bound by their
syntactic, collocational, situational, cultural and individual dialectal contexts. That is one way of
looking at translation, which suggests it is basically lexical. This is not so. The basic
thoughtcarrying element of language is its grammar. But since the grammar is expressed only in
words, we have to get the words right. The words must stretch and give only if the thought is
threatened.

Back Translation
Back-translation, as its name suggests, is a process whereby the translated text is re-translated
back into the source language by a translator who does not see the original text. If any
discrepancies are found between the back-translation and the original, this is taken as an
indication of translation errors in the target language version.

Accepted Translation
Accepted translation is a procedure in which you do not direct transfer the same terms of source
and target language. Because the same terms in different languages give different meaning. So
you have to transfer acceptable meaning.

Natural Translation
However, there are all kinds of insidious resistances to literal translation. You may feel it is not
translation, it is mechanical, it is automatic, it is humdrum, and it is not clever. You have been
told at school not to practice it. It does not enrich your knowledge either of the source or of the
target language. It is too easy. We have to resist these arguments. Apart from translationese (i.e.
inaccurate translation) the only valid argument against what I might find an acceptable literal
translation of an ordinary language unit is that you find it unnatural. Take I'heure est venue or les
maisons basses: if you insist you would not normally say 'the hour has come', only 'the time has
come'; not 'the low houses', only 'the squat or low-lying houses', I would suspect you were
deluding yourself, but I believe that, except for an expressive text, you should write in a manner
natural to yourself, a manner that expresses your own sense of good style. This is yet another of
the tensions within translation. In fact, by repeating several times to yourself a slightly '
unnatural' unit of language, or by saying it in a soft tone of voice, you can sometimes make it
sound more natural, and convince yourself it is a good translation. If it still remains unnatural to
you, you should avoid it. In this sense, the argument in favour of a translation having the impress
of a translator's own way of writing has precedence over the principle of literal translation.

Re Creative Translation
Literal translation is the first step in translation, and a good translator abandons a literal version
only when it is plainly inexact or, in the case of a vocative or informative text, badly written. A
bad translator will always do his best to avoid translating word for word. Re-creative translation -
'contextual re-creation' which means, roughly, translating the thoughts behind the words,
sometimes between the words, or translating the sub-text, is a procedure which some authorities
and translation teachers regard as the heart or the central issue of translation ('get a. far away as
possible from the words'). The truth is the opposite: 'interpret the sense, not the words' is, to my
mind, the translator's last resource; an essential resource, certainly, and a touchstone of his
linguistic sensitivity and creativity, not to mention his alertness and perspicacity, when words
mislead. Further, contextual re-creation is likely to be more common in interpretation, if
delegates are speaking off the cuff, than in written language translation, where words are more
carefully measured and perhaps closer to thought. But most translation is not creative in this
sense. You have to like struggling with words before you reach the longer passages.
Name Naeem Akram

Roll no 19011517-026

Course code TRAN-304

Course Name Art of Translation

Quiz Topic Summary

Submitted to Ms Faria Shaheen

Department CeLTS
SUMMARY
Translation process, according to Newmark, works on different levels. It begins with choosing a
method of translation taking into consideration the text type, then, start translating with four
levels in mind: Textual, referential, cohesive and naturalness. After that, we are going to
separately tackle other aspects which can be problematic in the process of translation such as:
The unit of translating
The translation of lexes
The translation of proper names
There are two methods of translation: semantic translation (unnatural) and communicative
translation (natural).
Communicative translation:
It attempts to produce on its readers an effect that is obtained on the readers of the original text.
Here, translators should convert the source language (SL) culture into the target language (TL)
culture as much as they can, expecting to make the translation smoother, briefer and more
understandable and “natural” to the TT reader. At the same time, the source language would play
a part as material basis that should be respected by the translators (if possible).

Semantic translation:
On the other hand, semantic translation is ST- oriented. It attempts to follow, as close as
possible, the exact semantic and syntactic structures of the ST trying to retain the special features
and expressions of the source language and shows the writer’s thought-process in a best way (the
opposite may happen). It remains within the original culture while not allowing changing any
local expressions of the source language. Thus, semantic translation tends to be more complex
and awkward and mostly sounds “unnatural” to the TT reader.

Levels:
Textual Level: This level works on the transference of the ST structures into their ready
corresponding structures in the TT. This is the level of literal translation that you have to
eliminate (if necessary).
However, during this step, the translator will face struggles when s/he fails to find the
equivalence, by making automatic transpositions, in the TL and is in a position to make
structural changes (maybe substantial) to achieve the TL naturalness.
Referential Level: At this level, the translator has to ask him\herself: what is the type of the text,
serves what and whom and what is it about (extra-textual analysis). S\he has to be able to put the
whole text in one sentence that summarizes the message, the facts of the text, identify the key
words that lead you to the essence of the text and to mentally create a
referential picture.
Cohesive Level: This level links the two previous levels in that it deals with, first, how the
sentences, within the text, are structured and connected, considering the lengths of sentences,
paragraphs, sequence of time, space and logic in the text. This is determined by connective
words (conjunctions, definite article, referential synonyms, punctuation marks…etc.).
Naturalness Level: It is a level on which the translator has to make sure that the translation
makes sense and reads naturally. This can only be done by forgetting the SL text and use the
appropriate grammar, idioms, words and expressions of the TL that ,obligatory, correspond the
situation. However, it should be noted that natural translation does not undermine content
accuracy; an effort has to be made to employ the particularities of the TL forms but
simultaneously adhere to the SL content.

Translation of Lexes:
Many difficulties we may encounter while translating such as, lexical problems. These latter
consists of words, collocations, idioms and neologisms. We can distinguish two kinds of
difficulties with words: first, in case you don’t understand them, second, in case you find them
hard to translate. As to the former, when you can’t understand a word, it may be because all its
possible meanings are not known to you or its meaning is determined its unusual reference in the
text.

Translation of proper names:

Newmark believes that proper names are “a translation difficulty in any text”. Sometimes
translators have to decide whether any additional explanation or information has to be supplied
for the TL readership. Some personal names have specific connotations and omitting theses
implied information leads to unacceptable translation. For example, in the Persian culture, Hatam
Taaei- the name of a very generous man in Iranian stories- for say, my father is Hatim Taaei.
Newmark’s Recommendations:
At the stage of revision, Newmark, strictly, thinks that a good translator should give the priority
to the ST allowing some changes (if necessary) to make the reading understandable and makes
sure the main sense of the text is retained.

Newmark’s recommendation to accomplish this is:

Decrease the paraphrasing as much as you could.
Be accurate; you have no right to change words or structures that already have ready equivalence
just because you think they sound better than the original. That’s what the author wrote. Why
would you want to change it?
According to him, revision ought to take 50-70% of the time of the whole process, depending on
the difficulty of the text.
Name Naeem Akram

Roll no 19011517-026

Course code TRAN-304

Course Name Art of Translation

Quiz Topic Summary

Submitted to Ms Faria Shaheen

Department CeLTS
English is considered the first language for the majority of the population in several countries
and the second language for others. Hence, English is becoming the language of communication
globally. Communication allows language users to interact with each other and in turn
understand what others are trying to convey.
Discourse in a language means that language gives meaning verbally and non-verbally. English
is a discourse language; its native speaker can understand it in any way like sentences are
unrelated or unified whole. The unity of these sentences achieved through cohesive devices.

The Concept of Cohesion

Text and Texture

In linguistics, any spoken or written discourse that forms a unified whole is referred to as a text.
A text is not a grammatical unit, but rather a semantic unit of language, i.e. a unit of meaning,
not of form. Texture differentiates the text from non-text.

Cohesion
Cohesion is the semantic relation between one element and another in a text. A text is cohesive
when the elements are tied together and considered meaningful to the reader. Cohesion occurs
when the interpretation of one item depends on the other.
For example; Amy went to the party. She sat with Sara.
In this sentence the element she is dependent on Amy.
There are two types of Cohesion.
1. Grammatical Cohesion
2. Lexical Cohesion

Grammatical Cohesion
There are four types of Grammatical Cohesion. Reference, Substitution, Ellipsis and
Conjunctions.

Reference
Reference can be identified as the situation in which one element cannot be semantically
interpreted unless it is referred to another element in the text. Pronouns, articles, demonstratives,
and comparatives are used as referring devices to refer to items in linguistic or situational texts.
Reference may either be exophoric or endophoric.
In exophoric reference reader gets the meaning looking beyond the situation to retrieve the
message. For example; That is a wonderful idea.
In this sentence for getting the message, reader has to look in previous sentences for getting the
message of that.
On the other hand, endophoric reference lies within the text itself. It is classified into two
classes: anaphoric and cataphoric. Anaphoric reference is where a word or phrase refers back to
another word or phrase used earlier in the text.
Amy went to the party. She sat with Sara.
She refers back to Amy; therefore, she is an anaphoric reference. Cataphoric reference looks
forward to another word or phrase mentioned later in the text. For instance in the following
sentence, he is a cataphoric reference that looks forward to Mike.
As soon as he arrived, Mike visited his parents.

Substitution
Substitution occurs when an item is replaced by another item in the text to avoid repetition. The
difference between substitution and reference is that substitution lies in the relation between
words, whereas reference between meanings. There are three types of substitution: nominal,
verbal, and clausal.
Nominal substitution is substituting a noun or a nominal group with another noun. In the
following example, one substitutes car.
This car is old. I will buy a new one.
Verbal substitution involves substituting a verb or a verbal group with another verb. The verb
element used to replace items in this type is do.
For example: I challenge you to win the game before I do!
Here, do is the substitution for win the game
Clausal substitution is substituting clauses by so or not. This is illustrated by the following:
A: Do you think the teacher is going to be absent tomorrow?
B: No. I don’t think so.
In this example, so substitutes the clause going to be absent.
Ellipsis
Ellipsis is the process of omitting an unnecessary item, which has been mentioned earlier in a
text, and replacing it with nothing. It is similar to substitution because Ellipsis is simply
substitution by zero. Normally, it is considered as an anaphoric relation because the omission
takes place within a text. When ellipsis occurs, the item that is omitted from the structure of the
text can still be understood. Ellipsis has three types; nominal, verbal and clausal.
In nominal ellipsis, the noun is omitted. This is exemplified by: My brothers like sports. In fact,
both [0] love football. [0: My brothers] In the second sentence, the nominal my brothers is
omitted.
Verbal ellipsis involves the omission of the verb. In the following example, the verb been
studying is left out in B.
A: Have you been studying?
B: Yes, I have[0]. [0: been studying]
Clausal ellipsis occurs when the clause is omitted. In the example mentioned below, the clause
writing on the board is excluded in B.
A: Who is writing on the board?
B: Alice is [0]. [0: writing on the board]

Conjunctions
Conjunction words are linking devices between sentences or clauses in a text. Unlike the other
grammatical devices, conjunctions express the ‘logical-semantic’ relation between sentences
rather than between words and structures.
Conjunctions are divided into four types, namely additive, adversative, causal, and temporal.
Additive conjunctions connect units that share semantic similarity. Examples of additive
conjunctions are, and, likewise, furthermore, in addition, etc.
Adversative conjunctions are used to express contrasting results or opinions. This type of
conjunction is expressed by words such as, but, however, in contrast, whereas, etc.
Causal conjunctions introduce results, reasons, or purposes. They are characterized by the use
of items such as, so, thus, therefore, because, etc.
Temporal conjunctions express the time order of events such as, finally, then, soon, at the same
time, etc.
Lexical Cohesion
Lexical cohesion concerns with vocabulary, the relationship between words and phrases involves
lexical cohesion. Lexical cohesion includes two types, reiteration and collocation.

Reiteration
Reiterations mean that two items could be repeated or have similar meanings in a text. The forms
of reiteration are repetition, synonymy, antonymy, and super ordination (hyponymy and
meronymy).
Repetition is the restatement of the same lexical item. This is illustrated by the following: Anna
ate the apple. The apple was fresh.
Synonymy is used to refer to items of similar meaning just as, attractive and beautiful.
Antonymy is the relation between items of opposite meanings such as, hot and cold.
Hyponymy refers to items of ‘general-specific’ or ‘an example of’ relationship. For example,
vehicle is the co-hyponym of car.
Meronymy is a ‘whole-part’ relationship between items. For instance, cover and page are co-
meronyms of the item book. In other words, book is the superordinate item of cover and page.

Collocation
Collocation is a combination of vocabulary items that co-occur together. It includes
combinations of adjectives and nouns such as, fast food, verbs and nouns such as, run out of
money, and other items such as, men and women.