Ministryof Science and Education of Republic of Kazakhstan
Colledgeof the Foreign Languages
Establishingand development of the theory of translation as a science in the XX century
Karaganda2008
Introduction
Many yearsago, according to the Bible, all people living on the Earth spoke the samelanguage. As they had had a great desire to reach the God, they began buildinga very high tower to be closer to him. The God decided to punish them and onemorning when they woke up they were speaking the different languages and couldnot understand each other. Since that very time people have been needinginterpreters. Functionally, an interpreter is a person who converts a sourcelanguage to a target language. The interpreter’s function is conveying everysemantic element (tone and register) and every intention and feeling of themessage that the source-language speaker is directing to the target-languagelisteners. Language interpreting or interpretation is the intellectual activityof facilitating oral and sign-language communication, either simultaneously orconsecutively, between two or more users of different languages. Functionally,interpreting and interpretation are the descriptive words for the activity. Inprofessional practice interpreting denotes the act of facilitating communicationfrom one language form into its equivalent, or approximate equivalent, inanother language form. Interpretation denotes the actual product of this work,that is, the message as thus rendered into speech, sign language, writing,non-manual signals, or other language form. This important distinction isobserved to avoid confusion. Peter Trent, a senator from Westmont, Canada wassure that: “To think that you can bean interpreter only because you know two languages is the same to think thatyou can play the piano only because you have two hands”. Each interpreter mustknow foreign languages very well and of course he must know theory oftranslation, because it is impossible to translate perfectly without knowingthe main basic aspects of the theory of translations. The theme of this workhas been chosen because the theory of translation is of great importance in myfuture life. It has a very interesting history, and was widely developed in theXX century. This century is often called a century of great discoveries,development and progress. Business relations among people, different kinds ofcommunications lead to intensive development of the theory of translation inthe XX century. This course paper’s aims are to show the history of interpreting, establishing of thetheory of translation and its development in the last century. The course paperconsists of introduction, two chapters, conclusion and bibliography. In thefirst chapter devoted to the history of interpreting and establishing of thetheory of translation the attention is paid to the definition of the terms“translation” and “interpreting”. It is shown that the history of translationhas a very long way, beginning from the ancient times. A special attention ispaid to the history of theory. In the second chapter which is dedicated to thedevelopment of the theory of translation in the twentieth century attention ispaid to Modern western Schools of translation and difference among them isshown. In this chapter the difference between simultaneous and consecutivetranslation is shown and types of interpreting are stated.
History ofinterpreting and establishing of the theory of translation
Translationand interpreting Translation is the interpreting of the meaning of a text andthe subsequent production of an equivalent text, likewise called a“translation”, that communicates the same message in another language. The textto be translated is called the “the source text”, and the language that it isto be translated into is called the “target language”; the final product issometimes called the “target text”. Translation must take into account constraints that include context,the rules of grammar of the two languages, their writing conventions, and theiridioms. A common misconception is that there exists a simple word-for-wordcorrespondence between any two languages, and that translation is astraightforward mechanical process; such a word-for-word translation, however,cannot take into account context, grammar, conventions, and idioms. Translationis fraught with the potential for “spilling over” of idioms and usages from onelanguage into the other, since both languages coexist within the translator’s mind.Such spilling over easily produce linguistic hybrids such as “Franglais”(French-English), “Spanglish” (Spanish-English), “Poglish” (Polish-English). Onthe other hand, inter-linguistic spillages have also served the useful purposeof importing calques and loanwords from a source language into a targetlanguage that had previously lacked a concept or a convenient expression forthe concept. Translators and interpreters have thus played an important role inthe evolution of cultures. The art of translation is as old as writtenliterature. Parts of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, among the oldest knownliterary works, have been found in translations into several Asiatic languagesof the second millennium BCE. The Epic of Gilgamesh may have been read, intheir own languages, by early authors of the Bible and of the Iliad. With theadvent of computers, attempts have been made to computerize or otherwiseautomate the translation of natural language texts (machine translation) or touse computers as an aid to translation (computer-assisted translation). Thelatin “translatio” derives from the perfect passive participle, “translatum”,of “transferre” The modern Romance, Germanic and Slavic European languages havegenerally formed their own equivalent terms for this concept after the Latinmodel – after “transferre” or after the kindred “traducere” (“to bring across”or “to lead across”). Additionally, the Greek term for “translation”,“metaphrasis” (“a speaking across”), has supplied English with “metaphrase” (a“literal translation”, or “word-for-word” translation) – as contrasted with“paraphrase” (“a saying in other words”, from the Greek “paraphrasis”).“Metaphrase” corresponds, in one of the more recent terminologies, to “formalequivalence”, and “paraphrase”, to “dynamic equivalence”. Newcomers totranslation sometimes proceed as if translation were an exact science – as ifconsistent, one to one correlations existed between the words and phrases ofdifferent languages, rendering translations fixed and identically reproducible,much as in cryptography. Such novices may assume that all that is needed totranslate a text is to “encode” and “decode” equivalents between the twolanguages, using a translation dictionary as the “codebook”. On the contrary,such a fixed relationship would only exist were a new language synthesized andsimultaneously matched to a pre-existing language’s scopes of meaning, etymologies, andlexical ecological niches. If the new language were subsequently to take on alife apart from such cryptographic use, each word would spontaneously begin toassume new shades of meaning and cast off previous associations, therebyvitiating any such artificial synchronization. Henceforth translation wouldrequire the disciplines in this article. Another common misconception is thatanyone who can speak a second language will make a good translator. In thetranslation community, it ie generally accepted that the best translations areproduced by persons who are translating into their own native languages, as itis rare for someone who has learned a second language to have total fluency inthat language. A good translator understands the source language well, hasspecific experience in the subject matter of the text, and is a good writer inthe target language. Moreover, he is not only bilingual but bicultural. It hasbeen debated whether translation is art or craft. Literary translators, such asGregory Rabassa in “If this be treason”, argue that translation is an art – ateachable one. Other translators, mostly technical, commercial, and legal,regard their “metier” as a craft – again, a teachable one, subject tolinguistic analysis, that benefits from academic study. As with other humanactivities, the distinction between art and craft may be largely a matter ofdegree. Even a document which appears simple, e.g. a product brochure, requiresa certain level of linguistic skill that goes beyond mere technicalterminology. Any material used for marketing purposes reflects on the companythat produces the product and the brochure. The best translations are obtainedthrough the combined application of good technical-terminology skills and goodwriting skills. Translation has served as a writing school for many prominentwriters. Translators, including the early modern European translators of theBible, in the course of their work have shaped the very languages into whichthey have translated. They have acted as bridges for conveying knowledge andideas between cultures and civilizations. Along with ideas, they have imported,into their own languages, loanwords and calques of grammatical structures,idioms and vocabulary from the source language. Interpreting, or“interpretation”, is the intellectual activity that consists of facilitatingoral or sign-language communication, either simultaneously or consecutively,between two or among three or more speakers who are not speaking, or signing,the same language. The words “interpreting” and “interpretation” both can beused to refer to this activity; the word “interpreting” is commonly used in theprofession and in the translation-studies field to avoid confusion with other meaningsof the word “interpretation”. Not all languages employ, as English does, twoseparate words to denote the activities of written and live-communication (oralor sign-language) translators. Even English does not always make thedistinction, frequently using “translation” as a synonym of “interpretation”,especially in nontechnical usage. Interpreting has been in exsistence eversince man has used the spoken word. It has therefore always played a vital rolein the relationships between people of different origins since the beginning ofmankind. However, there is a lack of hard evidence pinpointing the time of thecreation of interpreting due to the fact that interpreting, unlike writtentranslations, leaves behind no written proof. The first written proof ofinterpreting dates back to 3000 BC, at which time the Ancient Egyptians had ahieroglyphic signifying “interpreter”. The next widely known use ofinterpreting occurred in Ancient Greece and Rome. For both the Ancient Greeksand Romans, learning the language of the people that they conquered wasconsidered very undignified. Therefore, slaves, prisoners and ethnic hybridswere forced to learn multiple languages and interpret for the nobility.Futhermore, during this era and up until the 17th century. Latin wasthe lingua franca, or the language of diplomacy, in Europe, and therefore allnations had to have some citizens who spoken latin in order to carry ondiplomatic relations. Throughout the centuries, interpreting became more andmore widely spread due to number of factors. One such factor is religion. Thepeople of many different religions throughout history have journeyed intointernational territories in order to share and teach their beliefs. Forexample, 17th and 18th centuries AD, many Arabs were inWest Africa in order to trade. Along with commerce, however, the Arabsintroduced Islam to the Africans, and Arabic, the language of the Koran, becameever more important. Interpreters assisted in spreading the word of the Koranto the local villages. Another religion that has always yearned to explaned itsborders is Christianity. In 1253, William of Rubruck was sent by Louis IX on anexpedition into Asia accompained by interpreters. This was one of the veryfirst large-scale pure mission trips: William’s sole purpose was to spread the wordof God. Another factor that played a large role in the advancement ofinterpreting was the Age of Exploration. With so many expeditions to explorenew lands, people were bound to come across others who spoke a differentlanguage. One of the most famous interpreters in history came out of the Age ofExploration, specifically the early 16th century. This interpreterwas of Mexican descent, and served Cortes on his crusades. Her name was DonaMarina, also known as “La Malinche”. La Malinche serves as good example of thefeelings held toward interpreters in the Age of Exploration. Because theinterpreters that helped the conquerors were often of native descent, their ownpeople often felt that they were traitors, regardless of the circumstance andwhether or not they were interpreting voluntarily. On the other hand, however,these people served as a connection between the native population and theexplorers. The explorers therefore treasured these go-betweens. Furthermore,interpreters enabled many pacts and treaties to occur that otherwise would nothave been possible; they have played a large role in the formation of the worldthat we know today.
History oftranslation
The firstimportant translation in the West was that of the Septuagint, a collection ofJewish Scriptures translated into Koine Greek in Alexandria between the 3rdand 1st centuries BCE. The dispersed Jws had forgotten theirancestral language and needed Greek versions of their Scriptures. Throughoutthe Middle Ages, Latin was the “lingua franca” of the western learned world.The 9th century Alfred the Great, king of Wessex in England, was farahead of his time in commissioning vernacular Anglo-Saxon translations of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History and Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy. Meanwhilethe Christian Church frowned on even partial adaptations of the standard LatinBible, St.Jerome’s Vulgate. In Asia, thespread of Buddhism led to large-scale ongoing translation efforts spanning wellover a thousand years. The Tangut Empire was especially efficient in suchefforts; exploiting the then newly-invented block printing, and with the fullsupport of the government (contemporary sources describe the Emperor and hismother personally contributing to the translation effort, alongside sages ofvarious nationalities), the Tanguts took mere decades to translate volumes thathad taken the Chinese centuries to render. Large-scale efforts at translationwere undertaken by the Arabs. Having conquered the Greek world, they madeArabic versions of its philosophical and scientific works. During the MiddleAges, some translations of these Arabic versions were made into Latin, chieflyat Cordoba in Spain. Such Latin translations of Greek and original Arab worksof scholarship and science would help advance the development of EuropeanScholasticism. The broad historic trends in Western translation practice may beillustrated on the example of translation into the English language. The firstfine translation into English were made by England’s first great poet, the 14thcentury Geoffrey Chaucer, who adapted from Italian of Giovanni Boccaccio in hisown Knight’s Tale and Troilus andCriseyde; began a translation of the French language Roman de la Rose; andcompleted a translation of Boethius from the Latin. Chaucer founded an Englishpoetic tradition on adaptations and translations from those earlier-establishedliterary languages. The first great English translation was the Wycliffe Bible,which showed the weaknesses of an underdeveloped English prose. Only at the endof the 15th century would the great age of English prose translationbegin with Thomas Malory’s Le Morte Darthur – an adaptation of Arthurian ramances so free that itcan, in fact, hardly be called a true translation. The first great Tudortranslations are, accordingly, the Tyndale New Testament (1525), which wouldinfluence the Authorized Version (1611), and Lord Berners’ version of Jean Froissart’s Chronicles (1523-25). Meanwhile, inRenaissance Italy, a new period in the history of translation had opened inFlorence with the arrival, at the court of Cosimo de’ Medici, of the Byzantine scholarGeorgius Gemistus Pletho shortly before the fall of Constantinople to the Turks(1453). A Latin translation of Plato’s works was undertaken by Marsilio Ficino. This and Erasmus’ Latin edition of the New Testamentled to a new attitude to translation. For the first time, readers demandedrigor of rendering, as philosophical and religious beliefs depended on theexact words of Plato, Aristotle and Jesus. The Elizabethan period oftranslation saw considerable progress beyond mere paraphrase toward an ideal ofstylistic equivalence, but even to the end of this period – which actuallyreached to the middle of the 17th century – there was no concern forverbal accuracy. In the second half of the 17th century, the poetJohn Dryden sought to make Virgil speak “in words such as he would probablyhave written if he were living and an Englishman”. Dryden, however, discernedno need to emulate the Roman port’s subtlety and concision. Similarly, Homer suffered from Alexander Pope’s endeavor to reduce the greek poet’s “wild paradise” to order. Throughoutthe 18th century, the watchword of translators was ease of reading.Whatever they did not understand in a text, or thought might bore readers, theyomitted. They cheerfully assumed that their own style of expression was thebest, and that text should be made to conform to it in translation. Forscholarship they cared no more than had their predecessors, and they did notshrink from making translations from translations in third languages, or fromlanguages that they hardly knew, or – as in the case of James Macpherson’s “translations” of Ossian – fromtexts that were actually of the “translator’s” own composition. The 19thcentury brought new standards of accuracy and style. In regard to accuracy,observes J.M.Cohen, the policy became “the text, the whole text, and nothingbut the text”, except for any bawdy passages and the addition of copiousexplanotory footnotes. In regard to style, the Victorians’ aim, achieved through far-reachingmetaphrase or pseudo-metaphrase, was to constantly remind readers that theywere reading a foreign classic. An exception was the outstanding translation inthis period. Edward FitzGerald’s Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (1859), which achieved its Oriental Flavorlargely by using Persian names and discreet Biblical echoes and actually drew littleof its material from the Persian original. In advance of the 20thcentury, a new pattern was set in 1871 by Benjamin Jowett, who translated Platointo simple, straightforward language. Jowett’s example was not followed, however,until well into the new century, when accuracy rather than style became theprincipal criterion.
History oftheory
Discussions ofthe theory and practice of translation reach back into antiquity and showremarkable continuities. The distinction that had been drawn by the ancientGreeks between «metaphrase» («literal» translation) and«paraphrase» would be adopted by the English poet and translator JohnDryden (1631-1700), who represented translation as the judicious blending ofthese two modes of phrasing when selecting, in the target language,«counterparts,» or equivalents, for the expressions used in thesource language:When [words]appear… literally graceful, it were an injury to the author that they shouldbe changed. But since… what is beautiful in one [language] is often barbarous,nay sometimes nonsense, in another, it would be unreasonable to limit atranslator to the narrow compass of his author’s words: ’tis enough if hechoose out some expression which does not vitiate the sense. Dryden cautioned, however, againstthe license of «imitation,» i.e. of adapted translation: «When apainter copies from the life… he has no privilege to alter features andlineaments…» This general formulation of the central concept oftranslation — equivalence — is probably as adequate as any that has beenproposed ever since Cicero and Horace, in first-century-BCE Rome, famously andliterally cautioned against translating «word for word» («verbumpro verbo»). Despite occasional theoretical diversities, the actual practiceof translators has hardly changed since antiquity. Except for some extreme metaphrasersin the early Christian period and the Middle Ages, and adapters in variousperiods (especially pre-Classical Rome, and the 18th century), translators havegenerally shown prudent flexibility in seeking equivalents —«literal» where possible, paraphrastic where necessary — for theoriginal meaning and other crucial «values» (e.g., style, verse form,concordance with musical accompaniment or, in films, with speech articulatorymovements) as determined from context. In general, translators have sought topreserve the context itself by reproducing the original order of sememes, and henceword order — when necessary, reinterpreting the actual grammatical structure.The grammatical differences between «fixed-word-order» languages(e.g., English, French, German) and «free-word-order» languages(e.g., Greek, Latin, Polish, Russian) have been no impediment in this regard. Whena target language has lacked terms that are found in a source language,translators have borrowed them, thereby enriching the target language. Thanksin great measure to the exchange of calques and loanwords between languages,and to their importation from other languages, there are few concepts that are«untranslatable» among the modern European languages.In general,the greater the contact and exchange that has existed between two languages, orbetween both and a third one, the greater is the ratio of metaphrase to paraphrasethat may be used in translating between them. However, due to shifts in «ecologicalniches» of words, a common etymology is sometimes misleading as a guide tocurrent meaning in one or the other language. The English «actual,»for example, should not be confused with the cognate French «actuel»(meaning «present,» «current») or the Polish «aktualny»(«present,» «current»).The translator’s role asa bridge for «carrying across» values between cultures has beendiscussed at least since Terence, Roman adapter of Greek comedies, in thesecond century BCE. The translator’s role is, however, by no means a passiveand mechanical one, and so has also been compared to that of an artist. Themain ground seems to be the concept of parallel creation found in critics asearly as Cicero. Dryden observed that «Translation is a type of drawingafter life…» Comparison of the translator with a musician or actor goesback at least to Samuel Johnson’s remark about Alexander Pope playing Homer ona flageolet, while Homer himself used a bassoon.If translation bean art, it is no easy one. In the 13th century, Roger Bacon wrote that if atranslation is to be true, the translator must know both languages, as well asthe science that he is to translate; and finding that few translators did, hewanted to do away with translation and translators altogether. Thefirst European to assume that one translates satisfactorily only toward his ownlanguage may have been Martin Luther, translator of the Bible into German.According to L.G. Kelly, since Johann Gottfried Herder in the 18th century,«it has been axiomatic» that one works only toward his ownlanguage.Compounding these demands upon the translator is the fact that noteven the most complete dictionary or thesaurus can ever be a fully adequateguide in translation. Alexander Tytler, in his Essay on the Principles of Translation(1790), emphasized that assiduous reading is a more comprehensive guide to alanguage than are dictionaries. The same point, but also including listening tothe spoken language, had earlier been made in 1783 by Onufry AndrzejKopczyński, member of Poland’s Society for Elementary Books, who wascalled «the last Latin poet.» The special role of the translator insociety was well described in an essay, published posthumously in 1803, byIgnacy Krasicki – “Poland’s La Fontaine”, Primate of Poland, poet, encyclopedist, author of thefirst Polish novel, and translator from French and Greek: Translation… is infact an art both estimable and very difficult, and therefore is not the laborand portion of common minds; It should be practiced by those who are themselvescapable of being actors, when they see greater use in translating the works ofothers than in their own works, and hold higher than their own glory theservice that they render to their country.
Development ofthe theory of translation in the twentieth century
Modern WesternSchools of translation theory and translationAfter World War II, science andtechnology, linguistics and translation undertakings flourish, machinetranslation is quietly rising. People’s views on translation also will bechanged. Translation is not only an art or skill, but also a science, andliterature and art, sociology, psychology, information theory and the theoryNC, and other related disciplines but their own systems science. Translationtheory studies, is no longer confined to philosophers, writers and translators,language and translation to become an expert in the study of systems of theserious issue. Therefore, the translation of Western theory furtherdevelopment. Modern Western translation theory in the development of two majorcharacteristics: (1) theoretical research into linguistics areas, the modernlinguistics and the impact of information theory, and thus the obvious color oflinguistics, and the traditional theory of literary translation in starkcontrast; (2) In the past theorists behind closed doors, not contact with thesituation be broken. On the theorists through, magazines, essays, etc., fullyexpress their views. In addition, as means of transportation, publishingindustry and the progress of the emergence of international academicorganizations, countries translation theorists keep close contacts between theacademic exchanges have been strengthened. Modern Western translation theorythere are four main schools: Prague faction, London faction, the United States sent structure and Communication Theory camp. The founder of the School for MahiHughes (Vilem Mathesius), the Kuwaiti and Iraqi Telubeishi (Nikolay S.Trubetskoy) and Accor may Dobson (Roman Jakobson). AGB could be key members ofDobson, Levy, Victoria, such as the translation of important theorist. Theschool’s main arguments: (1) must be taken into account language translation ofa variety of functions, including cognitive function, the expression offeatures and tools, such as functional (2) must attach importance to languagetranslation of comparison, including the semantics, grammar, voice, language,style as well as literary genre comparisons. Prague School of the mostinfluential theorists are Luomanya can translate Dobson. He origin Russia, the Czech Republic after resettlement; moved to the United States during World War II,joining American. As one of the founders of the school, his main contributionto the theory of translation reflected in the «On the translation ofLinguistics» (On Linguistic Aspects of Translation) are. Articles from theperspective of linguistics, translation of the importance of the relationshipbetween language and translation, as well as the existing problems arebrilliant expositions. Since 1959 after the publication of this article hasbeen Western theoretical circles as a translation of the classic. Accor Dobsoncan be discussed five major points: (1) Translation divided into threecategories: language, translation (intralingual translation), theInter-translation (interlingual translation), and at the occasion oftranslation (intersemiotic translation). Within the so-called languagetranslation, refers to the same language used in some language other symbols toexplain the language symbols, which are usually «change that»(rewording). The so-called inter-language translation refers to two languagesin one language that is the sign to explain the symbols in another language,that is, the translation of the strict sense. At the occasion of the so-calledtranslation, refers to non-verbal symbol system explained linguistic symbols,or using symbols to explain non-verbal language symbols, such as the Qiyu wordsor gestures become. (2) Meaning depends on the understanding of translation. Hesaid that in language learning and linguistic understanding of the process oftranslation played a decisive role. (3) Accurate information on the translationsymmetry. Translation is involved in two different languages on the website,and other information. (4) All languages have the same ability. If the languagein vocabulary insufficient, it will be adopted by the word coinage orinterpretation of the language, and other methods for processing. (5)Translation Grammar area is the most complex issue. This is the presence ofstate, and a few, such as changes in the form of the language syntax,especially complex. United Kingdom London School is a school with the language,language that is the significance of the use of language from the socialenvironment (the social context of situation) decision. In the field oftranslation studies, translation and the original wording of the same dependson whether they used the same language environment. London School of the founder of the Fox (JR Firth). Two articles focus reflects the translation oftheory, a «Linguistics and Translation» (Linguistics and Translation)and the other one as «linguistic analysis and translation»(Linguistic Analysis and Translation). Falls focused on the following threeareas: (1) language analysis is the basis of translation (2) translation doesnot mean completely perfect translation; (3) in any two languages in thetranslation, a certain sense of language means of expression, such as it isimpossible to totally another language. Catford (John Catford) is the schoolsystem in comparison to the theory of translation scholars. Teaches at the University of Edinburgh Catford 1965 published «translation Linguistic Theory» (ALinguistic Theory of Translation) a book for translation theory developing newchannels, caused a huge reaction. Catford theory called «descriptive»of translation theory. He translated from the nature, type, and so on,conversion, such as limits explain «what is the translation of the»The central issue. (1) The nature of translation. Translation is «alanguage of the (former) that the text materials into another language (targetlanguage), such as the text of the material.» (2) Translation category. Onits extent, can be divided into «translation of the full text of»(full translation) and «partially translated» (partial translation);level on the terms of their language, can be divided into «completetranslation» (total translation) and «limited Translation» (restricted translation); on the registration of language structure, can bedivided into «restricted class» of translation and the«unlimited class» translation, namely the traditional sense, «averbatim translation» and the «translation» and «literaltranslation» between the two between. (3) The translation of the problems.On the one hand, and so is a translation of the experience as the basis to thephenomenon is based on a comparison of the two languages and discovered theother hand, such as the translation of a text and asked to see whether the sameor part of the same substantive characteristics. (4) Translation conversionrefers to the original form of a deviation from the corresponding asked.Translation conversion level conversion and are divided into areas ofconversion, which conversion can be divided into areas of structuraltransformation, parts of speech conversion, unit conversion and four within thesystem conversion. (5) Translation of the limits is that Untranslatabilityissues. There are two types of translation in the untranslatability. First, thelanguage of Untranslatability phenomenon Puns, superoxide Italy grammaticalstructure; Second, the cultural untranslatability is due to the differentsocial customs, different era background, and other non-language factors. Structureof the United States is the language school representative cloth dragonRumsfeld. He made an act of semantic analysis, that means that the stimulus andresponse between the existence of language relations. In the 1950s,cloth-Rumsfeld Chomsky’s theory of the transformation of production replaced bythe theory. Jiaozhi theory has three viewpoints: (1) human language ability isinnate; (2) Language is unencumbered by the rules; (3) surface structure andlanguage, including deep structure. The theory of translation studies in themajor impact on the surface structure and its deep structure on. Mainly lies inthe different languages of the respective different surface structures, anddeep structure is a common feature. Linguistic theory in the above under theinfluence, creating Wozhelin (CF Voegelin), Bo Ling grid (D. Bolinger), Katz(JJ Katz), Kuien (WV Quine) and Nida (EU Nida), represented Translation Theorysector of the United States of the school structure, and to Nida’s mostoutstanding. Nida Communication is the representative of translation theory.His translation theory can be summarized as the following six aspects: (1) thetheoretical principles. All languages have the same ability, and the primarytask is to translate that readers can be asked at a glance. (2) The nature oftranslation. According to Nida’s the definition of «so-called translation,refers to the style from the semantic (style) in the target language using themost natural reproduction of the original language, such as the phrase information.»Three of them are the key: First, «in accord with the natural,» I cannot have translation cavity; second is the «natural» choice on thebasis of the closest to the original meaning and asked the third is a«reciprocal», this is the core. Therefore, the translation must meetfour criteria: (a) to express (b) and vivid; (c) natural language English and(d) similar to the reader responses. (3) Translation function. From the sociallinguistics and language communication function standpoint, Nida that must betranslated for readers service targets. (4) The correct translation.Translation: correct depends on to what extent the readers can understandcorrectly asked. (5) Semantic analysis. One of the important process oftranslation of the original is a semantic analysis. Semantics can be dividedinto three types: grammatical meaning, the meaning and significance ofconnotations. (6) The procedures and methods of translation. In his view, theentire translation process is divided into four steps: analysis,interpretation, Reorganization (language translation by the rules ofre-organization asked) and examined. Since the 1980s, the translation of theoryNida a larger change. The main new viewpoints: (1) Translation is not science,but technology; (2) Translation can be born; (3) translation is not only alanguage communicative activities, but also a symbol of social interaction(sociosemiotic interaction) activities. In addition, there are morerepresentative of Germany’s Leipzig School and the former Soviet Union, such asschools. In short, the 20th century theory of the development of the West’slargest translation feature is included in translation studies linguistics,comparative linguistics and applied linguistics and semantics, and otherestablished intrinsically linked. Although the western translation theory hasachieved tremendous successes, but they are in the tradition of succession onthe basis of, and did not form a complete, universal theoretical system.
Models andtypes of interpreting
Interpretationis rendered in one mode: simultaneous. In simultaneous interpreting, theinterpreter immediately speaks the message in the target-language whilstlistening to it in the source language. Consecutive interpretation is renderedas “short consecutive interpretation” and “long consecutive interpretation”. Inshort consecutive interpretation, the interpreter relies on memory; eachmessage segment being brief enough to memories. In long consecutiveinterpretation, the interpreter takes notes of the message to aid renderinglong passages. These informal divisions are established with the client beforethe interpretation is effected, depending upon the subject, its complexity, andthe purpose of the interpretation. On occasion, document sight translation isrequired of the interpreter, usually in consecutive interpretation work. Sighttranslation combines interpretation and translation; the interpreter must readaloud the source-language document to the target – language as if it werewritten in the target language. Sight translation occurs usually, but notexclusively, in judicial and medical work. Relay interpretation occurs whenseveral languages are the target – language. A source – language interpreterrenders the message to a language common to every interpreter, who then rendersthe message to his or her specific target – language. For example, a Japanesesource message first is rendered to English to a group of interpreters, then itis rendered to Arabic, French, and Russian, the other target – languages. Insimultaneous interpretation, the interpreter renders the message in thetarget-language as quickly as he or she can formulate it from the sourcelanguage, while the source-language speaker continuously speaks: sitting in asound-proof booth, the SI interpreter speaks into a microphone, while clearlyseeing and hearing the source-language speaker via earphones. The simultaneousinterpretation is rendered to the target-language listeners via theirearphones. Moreover, SI is the common mode used by sign language interpreters.Note: Laymen often incorrectly describe SI and the SI interpreter as “simultaneoustranslation” and as the “simultaneous translator”, ignoring the definitedistinction between interpretation and translation. In whispering interpreting,the interpreter sits or stands next to the small target-language audiencewhilst whispering a simultaneous interpretation of the matter to hand; thismethod requires no equipment. Chuchotage is used in circumstances where themajority of a group speaks the source language, and a minority (ideally no morethan three persons) do not speak it. In consecutive interpreting, theinterpreter speaks after the source-language speaker has finished speaking. Thespeech is divided into segments, and CI interpreter sits or stands beside thesource-language speaker, listening and taking notes as the speaker progressesthrough the message. When the speaker pauses or finishes speaking, theinterpreter then renders the entire message in the target-language. Consecutively-interpretedspeeches, or segments of them, tend to be short. Fifty years ago, the CIinterpreter would render speeches of 20 or 30 minutes, today, 10 or 15 minutesis considered long, particularly since audiences don’t like to sit through 20minutes of speech they cannot understand. Often, the source-language speaker isunaware that he or she may speak at length before the CI interpretation isrendered, and might stop after each sentence to await its target-languagerendering. Sometimes, the inexperienced or poorly trained interpreter asks the speakerto pause after each sentence; sentence-by-sentence interpreting requires lessmemorization, yet its disadvantage is in the interpreter’s not having heard the entire speechor its gist, and the overall message is harder to render both because of lackof context and because of interrupted delivery (e.g., imagine a joke told inbits and pieces, with breaks for translation in between). This method is oftenused in rendering speeches, depositions, recorded statements, court witnesstestimony, and medical and job interviews, but it is always best to complete awhole idea before it is translated. Full consecutive interpreting allows forthe source-language message’s full meaning to be understood before the interpreter renders it to thetarget language. This affords a truer, accurate, and accessible interpretationthan does simultaneous interpretation. Liaison interpreting involves relayingwhat is spoken to one, between two, or among many people. This can be done aftera short speech, or consecutively, sentence-by-sentence, or as chuchotage(whispering); aside from note taken then, no equipment is used. Conferenceinterpreting is the interpretation of a conference, either simultaneously orconsecutively, although the advent of multi-lingual meetings has consequentlyreduced the consecutive interpretation in the last 20 years. Conferenceinterpretation is divided between two markets: the institutional and private.International institutions, holding multi-lingual meetings, often favourinterpreting several foreign languages to the interpreters’ mother tongues. Local privatemarkets tend to bi-lingual meetings (the local language plus another) and theinterpreters work both into and out of their mother tongues; the markets arenot mutually exclusive. The International Association of ConferenceInterpreters (AIIC) is the only world-wide association of conferenceinterpreters. Founded in 1953, it assembles more than 2.800 professionalconference interpreters in more than 90 countries. Legal, court, or judicialinterpreting, occurs in courts of justice, administrative tribunals, andwherever a legal proceeding is held (i.e. a conference room for a deposition orthe locale for taking a sworn statement). Legal interpreting can be theconsecutive interpretation of witnesses’ testimony for example, or thesimultaneous interpretation of entire proceedings, by electronic means, for oneperson, or all of the people attending. The right to a component interpreterfor anyone who does not understand the language of the court (especially forthe accused in a criminal trial) is usually considered a fundamental rule ofjustice. Therefore, this right is often guaranteed in national constitutions,declarations of rights, fundamental laws establishing the justice system or byprecedents set by the highest courts. Depending upon the regulations andstandards adhered to per state and venue, court interpreters usually work alonewhen interpreting consecutively, or as a team, when interpreting simultaneously.In addition to practical mastery of the source and target languages, throughknowledge of law and legal and court procedures is required of courtinterpreters. They often are required to have formal authorization from theState to work in the Courts – and then are called sworn interpreters. In manyjurisdictions, the interpretation is considered an essential part of theevidence. Incompetent interpretation, or simply to swear in the interpreter,can lead to a mistrial. In focus group interpreting, an interpreter sits in asound proof booth or in on observer’s room with the clients. There is usually a one way mirrorbetween the interpreter and the focus group participants, wherein theinterpreter can observe the participants, but they only see their ownreflection. The interpreter hears the conversation in the original languagethrough headphones and simultaneously interpreters into the target language forthe clients. Since there are usually anywhere between 2 to 12 (or more)participants in any given focus group, experienced interpreters will not onlyinterpret the phrases and meaning but will also mimic intonation, speechpatterns, tone, laughs, and emotions. In escort interpreting, an interpreteraccompanies a person or a delegation on a tour, on a visit, or to a meeting orinterview. An interpreter in this role is called an escort interpreter or anescorting interpreter. This is liaison interpreting. Also known as communityinterpreting is the type of interpreting occurring in fields such as legal,health, and local government, social, housing, environmental health, education,and welfare services. In community interpreting, factors exist which determineand affect language and communication production, such as speech’s emotional content, hostile orpolarized social surroundings, its created stress, the power relationship amongparticipants, and the interpreter’s degree of responsibility – in many cases more than extreme; in somecases, even the life of the other person depends upon the interpreter’s work. Medical interpreting is asubset of public service interpreting, consisting of communication, amongmedical personnel and the patient and his or her family, facilitated by aninterpreter, usually formally certified and qualified to provide suchinterpretation services. In some situations medical employees who aremultilingual may participate part-time as members of internal language banks.The medical interpreter must have a strong knowledge of medicine, commonmedical procedures, the patient interview, the medical examination processes,and the daily workings of the hospital or clinic were he or she works, in orderto effectively serve both the patient and the medical personnel. Moreover, andvery important, medical interpreters often are cultural liaisons for people(regardless of language) who are unfamiliar with or uncomfortable in hospital,clinical, or medical settings. When a hearing person speaks, an interpreterwill render the speaker’s meaning into the sign language used by the deaf party. When a deafperson signs, an interpreter will render the meaning expressed in the signsinto the spoken language for the hearing party, which is sometimes referred toas voice interpreting or voicing. This may be performed either as simultaneousor consecutive interpreting, Skilled sign language interpreters will positionthemselves in a room or space that allows them both to be seen by deafparticipants and heard by hearing participants clearly and to see and hearparticipants clearly. In some circumstances, an interpreter may interpret fromone sign language into an alternate sign language. Deaf people also work asinterpreters. They team with hearing counterparts to provide interpretation fordeaf individuals who may not share the standard sign language used in thatcountry. In other cases the hearing interpreted sign may be too pidgin to beunderstood clearly and the Deaf interpreter might interpret it into a moreclear translation. They also relay information from one form of language toanother – for example, when a person is signing visually, the deaf interpretercould be hired to copy those signs into a deaf-blind person’s hand plus include visual information.By its very nature, media interpreting has to be conducted in the simultaneousmode. It is provided particularly for live television coverages such as pressconferences, live or taped interviews with political figures, musicians,artists, sportsmen or people from the business circle. In this type ofinterpreting, the interpreter has to sit in a sound-proof booth where ideallyhe/she can see the speakers on a monitor ant the set. All equipment should bechecked before recording begins. In particular, satellite connections have tobe double-checked to ensure that the interpreter’s voice is not sent back and theinterpreter gets to hear only one channel at a time. In the case of interviewsrecorded outside the studio and some current affairs programme, the interpreterinterprets what he or she hears on a TV monitor. Background noise can be aserious problem. The interpreter working for the media has to sound as slickand confident as a television presenter. Media interpreting has gained morevisibility and presence especially after the Gulf War. Television channels havebegun to hire staff simultaneous interpreters. The interpreter renders thepress conference, telephone beepers, interviews and similar live coverage forthe viewers. It is more stressful than other types of interpreting as theinterpreter has to deal with a wide range of technical problems coupled withthe control room’shassle and wrangling during live coverage.
Simultaneousand machine translation
Up to the endof the twentieth at the international congresses, conferences and meetingsconsecutive translation was practiced: the speech of orator was translated inother working languages after its performance. “Depending on the amount ofworking languages accepted at the assembly of the delegates, each performancewas consistently repeated from a tribune several times, that resulted a largeloss of time. Only at the end of the 20th incidentally was practicedtranslation of speeches simultaneously with their listening, which has receivedits name of simultaneous translation. “It is often argued that the first WarCrimes trial (Nuremberg Trial) could not have possible simultaneous interpretation.The highlights of the early postwar period included the active participation ofSoviet interpreters in the Nuremberg Trial and the Tokyo Trial of majorJapanese war criminals. The real baptism of fire for a large group of Russianconference interpreters was the International Economic Conference held in Moscow in 1952. Since the 19th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, simultaneoustranslation has been more widely used on such occasions. The technique andhardware of simultaneous interpretation, at first somewhat crude and primitive,were gradually upgraded approaching international standards including a speaker’s microphone, system of posting,headphones and microphones of the interpreters (mounted in special cabins) andheadphones for the participants”. Each participant, being connected to theappropriate translation cabin, received an opportunity to listen to translationof speech simultaneously with the performance. The simultaneous translationgave significant economy of time, especially on the international meetings,where several working languages were used. Simultaneous translation graduallypressed consecutive translation and up to the present time became the basickind of translation at all multilateral international forums. Being the top ofthe interpreting mastery, it drew my interest towards writing the project onthis topic. Besides, as it appeared to be, there is not so much written aboutexact advices of interpreters or especially for teaching simultaneoustranslation. Besides, even the best methodology will not create asuper-professional interpreter, but using these techniques it is possible to upgradethe level of interpretation skills. The difficulty is that there are onlytheoretical works concerning this topic and not so many practical advices andexercises for the future interpreters training. Simultaneous translationis one of the most complicated kinds of translation. The main feature ofsimultaneous translation consists of parallel perception of speech of theorator and giving out the speech in language of translation. This feature ofsimultaneous translation defines other features of this kind and first of allthe rigid limit of time: the interpreter has only the period of pronouncing thespeech by the speaker for translation. This time is twice less than what theinterpreter has at consecutive translation, and in 20-30 times less, than at writtentext translation of the same speech. The interpreter has not only less time fortranslation, but also is imposed to the rate of translation, which shouldcorrespond to the rate of pronouncing the speech. Besides simultaneoustranslation has such special feature as segmental character: the interpretertranslates the text in segments in process of their receipt, whereas duringconsecutive translation (as well as at written translation of writtenmaterials) the interpreter listens to the whole text. These features makesimultaneous translation very difficult for learning. To simultaneoustranslation, perhaps, the traditional formula is almost not applied: in orderto translation one needs to know two languages and subject of conversation. Itis known, that not every man freely speaking foreign language is capable totake possession translation. First, preparation of the oral interpretersincluded mass ideological preparation, which completely brought to nothing aprofessional etiquette of the oral interpreter. Ideological sense oftranslation in the Soviet spirit was put much above its accuracy. Some decentinterpreters tried to avoid it. It is where the opinion about harm of trainingcame from. Second, the thematic principle was frequently practiced in trainingthe interpreters (and is practiced still now). This principle is seen in narrowspecialization of the training books: “The Textbook of military translation”,“Translation of the chemical texts”. The thematic orientation of training is onthe decline, not only because it educates the interpreters with a narrowprofessional outlook; its main disadvantage consists of mixing different things– knowledge on a theme and professional skills. In other words, knowledge aboutwhat to be spoken in the text and knowledge of what to be done with the text. Andfinally, the third feature, which is, perhaps, most essential for the Russianhistory of translation. Traditionally, to tell the truth, interpreters wereconsidered as the interpreters of fiction. The theorists of translation focusedtheir attention on fiction as deserving primary attention. Consequently,frequent answer to a question, whether it is possible to learn translation, isunderstood only in application to fiction. And the answer at once caused difficulties.The art of translation requires such huge volume of background erudition,additional knowledge and performance of complex texture of translation tasksthat frequently the thesis about creativeness is put forward, where reignsinspiration. The skill of translating fiction is a specific skill, and thoughthe possession of it is impossible without some rules working for translationof any text, but nevertheless it does not guarantee to the interpreter theskill to translate non-fiction. It is necessary to tell, that intuition andinspiration, which helps to feel and to transfer complex and fine stylistics,individual style and much of other things in translation, prevents theinterpreter to take the higher level of wider generalizations, and he would notbe able to distribute the personal experience to work with the non-fictiontexts, what simply means that the interpreter of fiction frequently, simplyspeaking, is not able to translate the non-fiction. And nevertheless,definitely: it is possible to learn! The experience of many translation schoolsof the world shows it. Training there is constructed differently, but alwayscontains a constant set of obligatory components and gives the result. Andcommon sense tells us that to learn is not only possible, but also necessary:it is impossible in the modern world to start up development of this importanttrade without paying attention. It harms the quality of translation productionand reduces prestige of a profession. Machine translation (MT) is a procedure whereby a computerprogram analyzes a source text and produces a target text without further humanintervention. In reality, however, machine translation typically does involvehuman intervention, in the form of pre-editing and post-editing. An exceptionto that rule might be, e.g., the translation of technical specifications(strings of technical terms and adjectives), using a dictionary-basedmachine-translation system. To date, machine translation—a major goal of natural-languageprocessing—has met with limited success. A November 6,2007, example illustratesthe hazards of uncritical reliance on machine translation. Machine translationhas been brought to a large public by tools available on the Internet, Such asYahoo!’s Babel Fish, Babylon, andStarDict. This tools produce a “gisting translation” – a rough translationthat, with luck, “gives the gist” of the source text. With proper terminologywork, with preparation of the source text for machine translation(pre-editing), and with re-working of the machine translation by a professionalhuman translator (post-editing), commercial machine-translation tools canproduce useful results, especially if the machine-translation system isintegrated with a translation – memory or globalization – management system. Inregard to texts (e.g., weather reports) with limited ranges of vocabulary and simplesentence structure, machine translation can deliver results that do not requiremuch human intervention to be useful. Also, the use of a controlled language, combinedwith a machine-translation tool, will typically generate largely comprehensibletranslations. Relying exclusively on unedited machine translation ignores thefact that communication in human language is context – embedded and that ittakes a person to comprehend the context of the original text with a reasonabledegree of probability. It is certainly true that even purely human-generatedtranslations are prone to error. Therefore, to ensure that a machine-generatedtranslation will be useful to a human being and that publishable-qualitytranslation is achieved, such translations must be reviewed and edited by a human.The late Claude Piron wrote that machine translation, at its best, automatesthe easier part of a translator’s job; the harder and more time-consuming partusually involves doing extensive research to resolve ambiguities in the sourcetext, which the grammatical and lexical exigencies of the target languagerequire to be resolved. Such research is a necessary prelude to the pre-editingnecessary in order to provide input for machine-translation software such thatthe output will not be meaningless. The lessons of machine translations’s first 50 years aren’t the kind we are used to hearingfrom our best and brightest machines: Make peace with stubborn limitations, cutthe hype, think in the scale of decades of gradual evolution, forget aboutbreakthoughs. In our laptops, we already have memory capacity and processingapeed that would have been barely imaginable in the age of the tube-drivenmainframes, but machine translation historian John Hutchins believes that even“infinite computer power is not a solution”. What is needed, he says, is deeperinsight into the processes of language and cognition. “there is no such thingas ‘perfect’ translation”, he adds. “There are only translations more or lesssuitable or successful for specific purposes and contexts”.
Cognitivescientist Steven Pinker, author of Words and Rules, believes that withincreased understanding of the structure of language to create more subtlelinguistic maps, boosts in chip speed to accelerate the gathering ofstatistical data from texts, and refinements in the building of world models,machine translation will improve in small but significant increments in thenext few years. “The better it works,” Pinker says, “the less it will be calledmachine translation. It will just be called software”. It’s clear that to do their job astranslators, computers will have to rely on what is most human in us: thecapacity to negotiate meaning. Even when hair-tearing levels of innacuracy areintroduced into chat room dialogue, Jennifer DeCamp, of Mitre Corporation, afederally funded IT think tank, points out that rapid back-and-forth exchangescan offer plenty of opportunities for what she calls “conversational repair”.Willingness to tolerate uncertainty and emrathetic leaps of understanding arewhat keep conversations on course in any medium. Research in machinetranslation has developed traditional patterns which wil clearly have to bebroken if any real progress is to be made. The traditional view that theproblem is principally a linguistic one is clearly not tenable but thealternative that require a translation system to have a substantial part of thegeneral knowledge of restricted domains can facilitate the translaton of thetexts in those domains. The most obvious gains will come from giving up, atleast for the time being, the idea of machine translation as a fully automaticbatch process in favor of one in which the task is apportioned between peopleand machines. The proposal made in according to which the translation machinewould consult with a human speaker of the source language with detailedknowledge of the subject matter, has attracted more attention in recent times.A major objection to this approach, namely that the cost of operating such asystem would come close to that of doing the whole job in the traditional way,will probably not hold up in the special, but widespread situation in which asingle document has to be translated into a large number of languages.
Conclusion
It isimpossible to imagine our modern society without translation and interpreting.People all over the world communicate with each other in different spheres:art, medicine, science, technology, politics, and music. Of course, a lot ofpeople know foreign languages, but they also need the interpreters andtranslators service as well. Only in tandem they can achieve good success. If aperson has chosen the profession of interpreter, all his life turns into study,with rare, casual breaks. First of all, any language develops, any society doesit, any relations do it too. Of course any interpreter or translator must knowthe theory of translation which differs him from any person who knows foreignlanguage. The theory of translation is his main tool which gives him knowledgeand strength. In the first chapter of the work the attention was paid to thehistory of interpreting and establishing of the translation theory. Thedifference between translation and interpreting was shown. Models ofinterpreting, such as simultaneous interpreting, consecutive interpreting,whispered interpreting, liaison interpreting were described. The attention wasalso paid to the types of interpreting. The second chapter of the work wasdevoted to the development of the theory of translation in the twentiethcentury. As the past century was famous for its communication boom, the theoryof translation was also influenced. The communication among people made thetheory develop in order to be more useful and helpful. In this vary chaptersome modern western schools of translation were described. The strong and weakpoints of the basic were also shown there. In the second chapter attention wasalso paid to the main popular modern types of interpreting and translation. Simultaneoustranslation is of great importance nowadays. Comparing with other types ofinterpreting and translation it is the most complicated type of interpreting,and it is more perfect form of consecutive translation. To perform such kind ofinterpreting, a person must be good prepared and well-trained. Simultaneoustranslation is both art and talent. And as any art it requires a talent, whichis impossible to learn. However any talent requires development and constantperfection. Machine translation is also very popular and useful nowadays. Thereare a lot of special computer programs which make the process of translationeasier. But machine translation without final correction is always clumsy andawful, it needs the corrections of the translator. And if you know foreignlanguage very well, such kind of translation will help you in your work, makingit faster and easier. This work may be interesting for students of foreignlanguage faculties, teachers and young translators as well. The informationgiven there will be useful and helpful for them. It will be also interestingfor those who are going to be interpreters or translators.
Bibliography
1. Barron,John, “The final escape of Lieutenant Belenko”, New York, 1980, pp. 23-28.
2. Cohen,J.M., “Translation”, Encyclopedia Americana, 1986, pp.12-15.
3. Crystal,Scott. “Back Translation: Same questions – different continent”, pp.5-15.
4. Darwish,Ali, “Towards a Theory of Constraints in Translation”. 1999.
5. Delisle,Jean, “Translators through History”, 1995, p 87.
6. Gaiba,F, “Origins of simultaneous interpretation”, 1998, p 56.
7. Iser,W, “The range of Interpretation”, 2000, p 63.
8. Kasparek,Christopher, “The Translator’s Endless Toil,” The Polish Review, 1983, pp. 83-87.
9. Kelly,L.G., ‘The True Interpreter: a History of Translation Theory and Practice inthe West”, 1979, pp. 25-36.
10. Muegge,Uwe. “Translation Contract: A Standards-Based Model Solution”, 2005, pp. 30-45.
11. Piron,C, “The Language Challenge”, 1994, pp. 45-56.
12. Pusteblume,journal of translation at Boston University.
13. Rose,Marilyn Gaddins, “Translation: agent of communication”, 1980, pp. 87-98.
14. Ross,Flora “Early Theories of Translation”, 1920, pp.56-67.
15. Simms,Norman, editor (1983). Nimrod’s Sin: Treason and Translation in a Multilingual World, pp. 12-20.
16. Tatarkiewicz,Wladyslaw, A History of Six Ideas: an Essay in Aesthetics, translated from thePolish by Christopher Kasparek, 1980, pp. 75-86.
17. TranslationNews, news about translations.
18. Venuti,Lawrence. “The Translator’s Invisibility”, 1994, pp. 45-52.
19. Wilss,W, 1999, “Translation and Interpreting in the 20th Century”, pp.89-110.
20. Гофман Е.А. К историисинхронного перевода. 1963, стр. 52-62.
21. Кочкина З.А.Некоторые особенности деятельности синхронного переводчика. 1963.
22. Миньяр-БелоручевР.К. Методика обучения переводу на слух. 1959.
23. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/translation
24. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreting