1

Introducing Translation Studies

Translation Theory before the 20th Century

Munday, J. (2016). Introducing Translation Studies
(Pp. 29-57). London: London & New York: Routledge

Presented by: Mostafa Amiri

3 Professor Jeremy Munday
Professor of Translation Studies
[email protected]

Summary: Translation studies; translation

theory; discourse analysis; ideology and
translation; translator archives and
manuscripts

Overview
I teach and research in the Spanish subject
area and in Translation Studies. My
specialisms are: linguistic translation
theories, discourse analysis (including
systemic functional linguistics), ideology
and translation, translator manuscripts and
Latin American literature in translation. I
am author of Introducing Translation
Studies (Routledge, 4th edition 2016).

I am a member of
Spanish, Portuguese and Latin American St
udies
(SPLAS), as well as the
Centre for Translation Studies (CTS). I
collaborate with Language at Leeds and
with the
Centre for Hispanic and Lusophone Cultural
 Key Concepts
4 • The ‘word-for-word’ (‘literal’) vs. ‘sense-for-sense’ (‘free’)
1 debate.

The importance of the translation of sacred texts.

2
The vitalization of the vernacular: Luther and the German Bible.
3
The influence of Dryden and the triad of metaphrase, paraphrase,
4 imitation.
• Attempts at a more systematic prescriptive approach from
Dolet
5 and Tytler.
•Schleiermacher: a separate language of translation and respect
6 for the foreign.

• The vagueness of the early terms used to describe translation.

7
5 Word-for-word and Sense-for-sense translation

The main focus is the central recurring theme of ‘word-

for- word’ and ‘sense-for-sense’ translation, a debate that
dominated much of translation theory in what Newmark
(1981: 4) called the ‘pre-linguistics period of translation’.

It is a theme which Susan Bassnett sees as ‘emerging

again and again with different degrees of emphasis in
accordance with differing concepts of language and
communication’ (2013: 53).
6 Cicero and St. Jerome

Up until the second half of the twentieth century, western

translation theory seemed locked in what George Steiner
(1998: 319) calls a ‘sterile’ debate over the ‘triadic model’ of
‘literalism’, ‘paraphrase’ and ‘free imitation’.

The distinction between ‘word-for-word’ (i.e. ‘literal’) and

‘sense-for-sense’ (i.e. ‘free’) translation goes back to Cicero
(106–43 BC) and St Jerome (347–420 AC).
7 Cicero (106–43 BC)

The Roman rhetorician and politician Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 BC) outlined
his approach to translation when introducing his own translation from the Greek
language:
And I did not translate them as an interpreter, but as an orator,
keeping the same ideas and forms, or as one might say, the ‘figures’
of thought, but in language which conforms to our usage. And in so
doing, I did not hold it necessary to render word for word, but I
preserved the general style and force of the language.

The ‘interpreter’ of the first line is often read by translation studies as being the
literal (‘word-for-word’) translator, while the ‘orator’ tried to produce a speech that
moved the listeners.
8 St. Jerome (347–420 AC)

In perhaps the most famous statement ever made on the translation

process, St Jerome (347–420 AC) defends himself against accusations of
‘incorrect’ translation and describes his strategy in the following terms:

Now 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.
9 Comments on St. Jerome (347–420 AC)
Although some scholars (e.g. Vermeer 1994: 7) argue that these terms
(word-for-word and sense-for-sense) have been misinterpreted, Jerome’s
statement is now usually taken to refer to what came to be known as
‘literal’ (word-for-word) and ‘free’ (sense-for-sense) translation.

Jerome rejected the word-for-word approach – except in case of the

Holy Scripture- because, by following so closely the form of the ST, it
produced an absurd translation, cloaking the sense of the original. The
sense-for-sense approach, on the other hand, allowed the sense or
content of the ST to be translated. In these poles can be seen the origin
of both the ‘literal vs. free’ and ‘form vs. content’ debate that has
continued until modern times.
Indeed, Jerome is explicitly making some distinction between different
text types.
the Bible, he says, necessitated a literal method that paid closer
attention to the words, syntax and ideas of the original.
10 Arabic Discourse on Translation

The ‘literal’ and ‘free’ poles surface once again in the rich translation
tradition of the Arab world, which created the great center of translation in
Baghdad. There was intense translation activity in the Abbasid period
(750–1250 AC), encompassing a range of languages and topics.

These were centered on the translation into Arabic of Greek scientific and
philosophical material, often with Syriac as an intermediary language
(Delisle and Woodsworth 1995: 112).
11 Arabic Discourse on Translation

Scholars describe the two translation methods that were adopted during
that period:
The first [method], associated with Yuhanna Ibn al-Batrıq and Ibn
Na’ima
al-Himsi, was highly literal and consisted of translating each
Greek word with an equivalent Arabic word and, where none
existed, borrowing the Greek word into Arabic.
According to Baker and Hanna (ibid.), this word-for-word method proved to
be
unsuccessful and was later revised using the second, sense-for-sense
method:
The second method, associated with Ibn Ishaq and al-Jawahari,
consisted of
translating sense-for-sense, creating fluent target texts which
Once again, the terminology of this description is strongly influenced by
conveyed the
the Classical western European discourse on translation.
meaning of the original without distorting the target language.
12 Arabic Discourse on Translation

In discussing the Arab tradition, Salama-Carr (1995:112–15) concentrates

more on the way translation strategies ‘helped establish a new system of
thought that was to become the foundation of Arabic–Islamic culture – both
on the conceptual and terminological levels’. Over the years, this saw the
increased use of Arabic neologisms rather than the transliteration of Greek
terms. Arab translators also became very creative in supplying instructive
and explanatory commentaries and notes.
Gutas contends (Gutas 1998: 138–50) that the wealth of texts increased
the demand for translators which in turn led to their greater
professionalization and improved knowledge of Greek. For Gutas, the
divergences of style should be explained not as an evolution but as arising
from different ‘translation complexes’ (groupings of translators and
patrons) which operated independently on different texts.
13 Humanism and the Protestant Reformation

Within western society, issues of free and literal translation were for over
a thousand
years after St Jerome bound up with the translation of the Bible and
other religious and philosophical texts.
In the early fifteenth century, the Protestant Reformation of northern
Europe, which was to lead to a huge schism within Christianity, began to
challenge Latin through the translation of the Bible into vernacular
languages.
In such circumstances, the translation of any book which diverged from
the Church’s interpretation ran the risk of being deemed heretical and
of being censured or banned. Even the mere act of translation could be
considered a threat to the established order.

The most famous examples are the English theologian-translator William

Tyndale
(c.1490–1536) and the French humanist Étienne Dolet (1509–1546).
14 Martin Luther

The general climate of the Reformation and the new technology of the
printing press meant that Bible translations dominated book production
(Bobrick 2003: 81). Non-literal or non-accepted translation came to be
seen and used as a weapon against the Church. The most notable example
is Martin Luther’s crucially influential translation into East Central German
of the New Testament (1522) and later the Old Testament (1534).
Luther follows St Jerome in rejecting a word-for-word translation strategy
since it would be unable to convey the same meaning as the Source Text
and would sometimes be incomprehensible.
While Luther’s treatment of the free and literal debate does not show great
theoretical advance on what St Jerome had written over a thousand years
before, his infusion of the Bible with the language of ordinary people
and his consideration of translation in terms that focused on the
Target Language and the Target Text reader were crucial.
15 Historical view of Theories of Translation

Historical view of Theories of Translation

1. Discontinuity: Flora Amos in Early Theories of Translation

2. Continuity: F. Rener in Interpretatio: Language and Translation from

Cicero to Tyndale
16 Disontinuity View of Theories of Translation

In her Early Theories of Translation, Flora Amos sees the history of the
theory of translation as ‘by no means a record of easily distinguishable,
orderly progression’ (Amos 1920/1973: x).
Amos notes (ibid.: xi) that early translators often differed considerably in
the meaning they gave to terms such as ‘faithfulness’, ‘accuracy’ and even
the word ‘translation’ itself.

For her, theory was generally unconnected and amounted to a broad series
of prefaces and comments by practitioners who often ignored, or were
ignorant of, earlier discourse.
 Fidelity, spirit and truth
17

The concept of fidelity (or at least the translator who was fidus interpres, i.e. the
‘faithful interpreter’) had initially been dismissed as literal, word-for-word translation by
Horace. Indeed, it was not until the end of the seventeenth century that fidelity
had come to be generally identified with faithfulness to the meaning rather
than the words of the author.
Kelly (ibid.: 206) describes spirit as similarly having two meanings: the Latin word
spiritus denotes creative energy or inspiration, proper to literature, but St Augustine
(354–430 AD) used it to mean the Holy Spirit of God, and his contemporary St Jerome
employed it in both senses. Much later, spirit lost the religious sense it originally
possessed and was thenceforth used in the sense of the creative energy of a
text or language.
For St Augustine, spirit and truth (Latin veritas) were intertwined, with truth having the
sense of ‘content’; for St Jerome, truth meant the authentic Hebrew Biblical text to
which he returned in his Latin Vulgate translation. Kelly considers that it was not
until the twelfth century that truth became fully equated with ‘content’.

It is easy to see how in the translation of sacred texts, where ‘the Word of God’ is
paramount, there has been such an interconnection of fidelity (to both the words and
the perceived sense), spirit (the energy of the words and the Holy Spirit) and truth (the
‘content’).
 Rener’s view of continuity
18

In contrast to Amos, Rener (1989) makes a persuasive case for continuity in

the early translation prefaces in the west. This continuity derived from a
common theoretical conceptualization of language.
The study of language was divided into grammar (the ‘correct’ use of words
and sentences) and rhetoric (their use as communication, notably to
persuade).
Grammar privileged words that exhibited the values of proprietas
(acceptability), puritas (purity) and perspecuitas (clarity); a word should be
accepted as an integral part of the language and commonly understood, it
should have a long history and be employed in the texts of high-status
writers.
Rhetoric valued elegantia (elegance) and dignitas (dignity), which were
stylistic considerations that covered structure, rhythm and musicality. The
influence of this thinking persisted.
 Early attempts at systematic translation theory
19

For Amos (ibid.: 137), the England of the seventeenth century – with
Denham, Cowley and Dryden – marked an important step forward in
translation theory with ‘deliberate, reasoned statements, unmistakable in
their purpose and meaning’.
At that time, apart from the Bible, translation into English was almost
exclusively confined to verse renderings of Greek and Latin Classics.
Because at that time translation had come to be valued as an exercise in
creativity and novelty, some of these renderings were extremely free.
20 Abraham Cowley (1618–1667)

In his preface to Pindaric Odes (1640), Abraham Cowley attacks poetry

that is ‘converted faithfully and word for word into French or Italian prose’
His approach is also to counter the inevitable loss of beauty in translation
by using ‘our wit or invention’ to create new beauty. In doing this, Cowley
admits he has ‘taken, left out and added what I please’ to the Odes.

Cowley even proposes the term ‘imitation’ for this very free method of
translating.
Cowley believed this was the method that permitted the ‘spirit’ of the
Source Text to be best reproduced.
 John Dryden (1631–1700)
21
Such a very free approach to translation produced a reaction, notably from
another English poet and translator, John Dryden (1631–1700), whose
brief description of the translation process would have enormous impact on
subsequent translation theory and practice.
In the preface to his translation of Ovid’s Epistles in 1680, Dryden
(1680/1992: 25) reduces all translation to three categories:
(1) ‘metaphrase’: ‘word by word and line by line’ translation, which
corresponds
to literal translation;
(2) ‘paraphrase’: ‘translation with latitude, where the author is kept in
view by the translator, so as never to be lost, but his words are not so
strictly followed as his sense’; this involves changing whole phrases
and more or less corresponds to faithful or sense-for-sense translation;
(3) ‘imitation’: ‘forsaking’ both words and sense; this corresponds to
Cowley’s very free translation and is more or less what today might
be understood as adaptation.
22 John Dryden (1631–1700)

Graphically, we might represent this as follows:

Literal translation Free translation

Adaptation
word for word sense for sense

Metaphrase Paraphrase
Imitation
23 John Dryden (1631–1700)

Dryden criticizes translators such as Ben Jonson (1572–1637), who adopts

metaphrase, as being a ‘verbal copier’ (ibid.). Such ‘servile, literal’ translation
is dismissed with a now famous simile: ‘ ’Tis much like dancing on ropes with
fettered legs – a foolish task.’
Similarly, Dryden rejects imitation, where the translator uses the ST ‘as a
pattern to write as he supposes that author would have done, had he lived in
our age and in our country’ (ibid.).
Imitation, in Dryden’s view, allows the translator to become more visible, but
does ‘the greatest wrong . . . to the memory and reputation of the dead’ (ibid.:
20).
Dryden thus prefers paraphrase, advising that metaphrase and imitation be
avoided.
24 John Dryden (1631–1700)

In general, Dryden and others writing on translation at the time are very
prescriptive, setting out what in their opinion has to be done in order for
successful translation to take place.
Other early writers on translation also began to state their principles in a
similarly prescriptive fashion. One of the first had been Étienne Dolet.
25 Étienne Dolet (1509–1546)

He set out five principles in order of importance as follows:

(1) The translator must perfectly understand the sense and material of the
original author, although he [sic] should feel free to clarify obscurities.
(2) The translator should have a perfect knowledge of both SL and TL, so as
not to lessen the majesty of the language.
(3) The translator should avoid word-for-word renderings.
(4) The translator should avoid Latinate and unusual forms.
(5) The translator should assemble and liaise words eloquently to avoid
clumsiness.
Here again, the concern is to reproduce the sense and to avoid word-for-word
translation. But the stress on producing an eloquent and natural TL form was:
1. rooted in a Humanist enthusiasm for the rediscovered Classics and
2. a political desire to reinforce the structure and independence of the new
vernacular French
language.
 Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813)
26

In English, the first comprehensive and systematic study of translation is

Alexander Fraser Tytler’s ‘Essay on the principles of translation’,
published in 1790.
Tytler (1747–1813) defines a ‘good translation’ as being oriented towards
the target language reader:
That in which the merit of the original work is so completely
transfused into another language as to be as distinctly
apprehended, and as strongly felt,
by a native of the country to which that language belongs as
it is by those who
speak the language of the original work.

(Tytler 1797/1997: 209)

27 Tytler’s general laws

Tytler (ibid.) has three general ‘laws’ or ‘rules’.

(1) The translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of

the original work.

(2) The style and manner of writing should be of the same character
with that of the original.

(3) The translation should have all the ease of the original
composition.
28 Comments on Tytler’s general laws

Tytler’s first law refers to the translator having a ‘perfect knowledge’ of the
original (ibid.: 210), being competent in the subject and giving ‘a
faithful transfusion of the sense and meaning’ of the author.

Tytler’s second law deals with the style of the author and involves the
translator’s both identifying ‘the true character’ (ibid.: 113) of this style
and having the ability and ‘ correct taste’ to recreate it in the TL.

Tytler’s third law (ibid.: 211–12) talks of having ‘all the ease of
composition’ of the ST. Tytler regards this as the most difficult task and
likens it, in a traditional metaphor, to an artist producing a copy of a
painting.
29 Comments on Tytler’s general laws

Tytler himself recognizes that the first two laws represent the two widely
different opinions about translation. They can be seen as the poles of
faithfulness of content and faithfulness of form, reformulations of the
sense-for-sense and word-for-word dyad of Cicero and St Jerome.

Importantly, however, just as Dolet had done with his principles, Tytler ranks
his three laws in order of comparative importance. Such hierarchical
categorization gains force in more modern translation theory.

For instance, the discussion of translation ‘loss’ and ‘gain’, which continues
even to the present, is in some ways presaged by Tytler’s suggestion that the
rank order of the laws should be a means of determining decisions when a
‘sacrifice’ has to be made (ibid.: 212).
 Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and the valorization of the foreign
30

Schleiermacher was a philosopher of the German Romanic Period.

One of the Romantics’ interest was in how translation could be a means for
improving
German literature and culture; they centered on the issues of
translatability or untranslatability and the mythical nature of
Schleiermacher
translation. first distinguishes two different types of translator working
on two different types of text. These are:
(1) The ‘Dolmetscher’, who translates commercial texts;
(2) The ‘Übersetzer’, who works on scholarly and artistic texts.

It is this second type that Schleiermacher sees as being on a higher

creative plane, breathing new life into the language (1813/2012: 44).
 Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and the valorization of the foreign
31

Although it may seem impossible to translate scholarly and artistic texts,

since the ST meaning is couched in language that is very culture-bound
and to which the TL can never fully correspond, the real question, according
to Schleiermacher, is how to bring the ST writer and the TT reader
together.
He moves beyond the strict issues of word-for-word and sense-for-sense,
literal, faithful and free translation, and considers there to be only two paths
open for the ‘true’ translator:
Either the translator leaves the writer in peace as much as possible
and moves the reader toward him, or he leaves the reader in peace
as much as possible and moves the writer toward him.

(Schleiermacher 1813/2012: 49)

 Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and the valorization of the foreign
32

Schleiermacher’s preferred strategy is to move the reader towards the

writer.
Schleiermacher’s method is to ‘give the reader, through the translation, the
impression
he would have received as a German reading the work in the original
language’ (ibid.: 50).
In this way, the translator, an expert in the TL, can help the less competent
but intelligent German reader to appreciate the ST. To achieve this, the
translator must adopt an ‘alienating’, ‘foreignizing’ method of translation.
This emphasizes the value of the foreign, by ‘bending’ TL word-usage to try
to ensure faithfulness to the ST. Thus can the TT be faithful to the sense
and sound of the ST and can import the foreign concepts and culture
into German (Forster 2010: 416).
 Consequences of Schleiermacher’s approach
33

There are several consequences of this approach, including:

(1) If the translator is to seek to communicate the same impression which he

or she received from the ST, this impression will also depend on the level
of education and understanding among the TT readership, and this is
likely to differ from the translator’s own understanding.

(2) A special language of translation may be necessary, for example

compensating in one place with an imaginative word where elsewhere
the translator has to make do with a hackneyed expression that cannot
convey the impression of the foreign.
 Schleiermacher’s influence
34

- Modern translation theory – at least in the German-language area

- Reiss’s text typology

- Venuti as ‘foreignization’ and ‘domestication’

- Walter Benjamin and his vision of a ‘language of translation’

- George Steiner’s ‘hermeneutic motion’

 Towards contemporary translation theory
35

Steiner in fact describes as ‘very small’ the range of theoretical ideas

covered in early history of translation theory.

Modern theoreticians concur that the main problem with the writings on
translation in this period was that the criteria for judgements were vague
and subjective (Bassnett 2013) and that the judgements themselves were
highly normative (Wilss 1977/1982).
As a reaction against such vagueness and contradictions, translation theory
in the second half of the twentieth century made various attempts to
redefine the concepts ‘literal’ and ‘free’ in operational terms, to describe
‘meaning’ in scientific terms, and to put together systematic taxonomies of
translation phenomena. These approaches form the core of the following
chapters we are going to study.
36