A Theoretical Account of Translation - Without a Translation Theory

Ernst-August Gutt

Abstract

This paper argues that the phenomenon commonly referred to as "translation" can be accounted for naturally within the relevance theory of communication developed by Sperber and Wilson: there is no need for a distinct general theory of translation. Most kinds of translation can be analysed as varieties of interpretive use. I distinguish direct from indirect translation. Direct translation corresponds to the idea that translation should convey the same meaning as the original. It requires the receptors to familiarise themselves with the context envisaged for the original text. The idea that the meaning of the original can be communicated to any receptor audience, no matter how different their background, is shown to be a misconception based on mistaken assumptions about communication. Indirect translation involves looser degrees of resemblance. Direct translation is merely a special case of interpretive use, whereas indirect translation is the general case. In all cases the success of the translation depends on how well it meets the basic criterion for all human communication, which is consistency with the principle of relevance. Thus the different varieties of translation can be accounted for without recourse to typologies of texts, translations, functions or the like.

Table of contents

The amount of literature on translation is vast; people have written on this subject for about two millennia. However, the bulk of the literature that came to be written over the centuries does not necessarily indicate the depth of understanding that has been reached on this topic. Thus Steiner states that "despite this rich history, and despite the calibre of those who have written about the art and theory of translation, the number of original, significant ideas in the subject remains very meagre" (1975: 238). Levý observed that the penetration of subject matter was lacking especially on the theoretical side:

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Beekman, John and John Callow
1974Translating the Word of God, 1. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1987Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chukovskii, Kornei
1984The Art of Translation, tr. & ed. Lauren G. Leighton. Knoxville: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Frawley, William
1984 "Prolegomenon to a Theory of Translation". William Frawley, ed. Translation: Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives. London: Associated University Press 1984 159–175.Google Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August
1987 "What is the Meaning We Translate?" Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics 1 (January). 31–58.Google Scholar
1988 "From Translation to Effective Communication". Notes on Translation 2:1. 24–40.Google Scholar
1989Translation and Relevance. University College London Doctoral Dissertation.Google Scholar
Forthcoming. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford: Blackwell. Crossref logo
Hönig, Hans G. and Paul Kuβmaul
1982Strategie der Übersetzung: Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
House, Juliane
1981A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kade, Otto
1968Zufall und Gesetzmäβigkeit in der Übersetzung. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Larson, Mildred L.
1984Meaning-based Translation: A Guide to Cross-language Equivalence. New York: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Levý, Jiří
1969Die literarische Übersetzung: Theorie einer Kunstgattung. Frankfurt a.M: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht
1968 "Pragmatische Aspekte der Übersetzung". Grundfragen der Übersetzungswissenschaft [= Beihefte zur Zeitschrift Fremdsprachen II]. Leipzig 1968 21–33.Google Scholar
Newmark, Peter
1988Approaches to Translation. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A.
1964Toward a Science of Translating. With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. and Charles Taber
1969The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Picken, Catriona
1983The Translator’s Handbook. London: Aslib.Google Scholar
Reiβ, Katharina and Hans J. Vermeer
1984Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary
1988Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 164 ]
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
1986aRelevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1986b “Loose Talk”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 1985/6, vol. 86. 153–171. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1987 "Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition ". Behavioural and Brain Sciences 10. 697–754.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Steiner, George
1975After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber
1988a "Representation and Relevance". R.M. Kempson, ed. Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1988 133–153.Google Scholar
1988b "Mood and the Analysis of Non-declarative Sentences". J. Dancy, J. Moravcsik and C.C.W. Taylor, eds. Human Agency: Language, Duty and Value. Stanford: Stanford University Press 1988 77–101.Google Scholar
Wilss, Wolfram
1982The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar