TEXT 1. What translation theory is about

Translation theory is a misnomer, a blanket term, a possible translation, therefore a translation label, for Übersetzungswissenschaft. In fact translation theory is neither a theory nor a science, but the body of knowledge that we have and have still to have about the process of translating: it is therefore an -ology, but I prefer not to call it 'translatology' (Harris, 1977) or 'traductology' (Vasquez, 1977), because the terms sound too pretentious – I do not wish to add to any -ologies or -isms. Besides, since, as Gombrich (1978) has pointed out, Kunstwissenschaft translates 'art theory', 'translation theory' will do.

Translation theory's main concern is to determine appropriate translation methods for the widest possible range of texts or text-categories. Further, it provides a framework of principles, restricted rules and hints for translating texts and criticizing translations, a background for problem-solving. Thus, an institutional term ('MP') or a metaphor ('the stone died' (see Levin, 1977)) or synonyms in collocation or metalingual terms may each be translated in many ways, if it is out of context; in these areas, the theory demonstrates the possible translation procedures and the various arguments for and against the use of one translation rather than another in a particular context. Note that translation theory is concerned with choices and decisions, not with the mechanics of either the source language (SL) or the target language (TL). When Catford (1965) gives a list of words that are grammatically singular in one language and plural in another, he may be helping the student to translate, he is illustrating contrastive linguistics, but he is not contributing to translation theory.

Lastly, translation theory attempts to give some insight into the relation between thought, meaning and language; the universal, cultural and individual aspects of language and behaviour, the understanding of cultures; the interpretation of texts that may be clarified and even supplemented by way of translation.

Thus translation theory covers a wide range of pursuits, attempts always to be useful, to assist the individual translator both by stimulating him to write better and to suggest points of agreement on common translation problems. Assumptions and propositions about translation normally arise only from practice, and should not be offered without examples of originals and their translations. As with much literature à thèse, the examples are often more interesting than the thesis itself. Further, translation theory alternates between the smallest detail, the significance (translation) of dashes and hyphens, and the most abstract themes, the symbolic power of a metaphor or the interpretation of a multivalent myth.

Consider the problem: a text to be translated is like a particle in an electric field attracted by the opposing forces of the two cultures and the norms of two languages, the idiosyncrasies of one writer (who may infringe all the norms of his own language), and the different requirements of its readers, the prejudices of the translator and possibly of its publisher. Further, the text is at the mercy of a translator who may be deficient in several essential qualifications: accuracy, resourcefulness, flexibility, elegance and sensitivity in the use of his own language, which may save him from failings in two other respects: knowledge of the text's subject matter and knowledge of the SL.

(Newmark P. Approaches to Translation. Cambridge, 1988. P.19-20)