Discussion
A Case for Linguistics in Translation Theory

Vladimir Ivir

Table of contents

Translation can be, and has traditionally been, viewed as a linguistic operation, meaning one that involves language(s). The popular notion is that a (if not the) prerequisite for translation work is the knowledge of two languages and that the translator's tools include such products of linguistic scholarship as mono- and bi-lingual dictionaries, thesauruses, grammar books and style manuals. Translators have often been trained in language-teaching institutions, relying for the most part on language-teaching methods. Finally, the starting point and end product of translation is text (source text and target text respectively)—an eminently linguistic entity. Also, it was no mere accident that early efforts in machine translation focused almost exclusively on linguistic phenomena, lexical pairing and syntactic parsing, and that the more recent computer-aided packages again cater predominantly for the translator's linguistic needs. Any discussion of translation—either as a process or as a product—inevitably revolves around linguistic issues.

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.

[ p. 157 ]References

Bolinger, Dwight
1966 “Transformulation: Structural Translation”. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia IX. 130–144.Google Scholar
Catford, J.C.
1965A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto
1990I limiti delVinterpretazione. Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
Holz-Mänttäri, Justa
1984Translatorisches Handeln: Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. [Annales Academiæ Scientiarum fennicæ, B 226.]Google Scholar
1986 “Translatorisches Handeln—theoretisch fundierte Berufs-profile”. Mary Snell-Hornby, ed. Übersetzungswissenschaft: Eine Neuorientierung. Tübingen: Francke 1986 348–374.Google Scholar
Ivir, Vladimir
1981 “Formal Correspondence vs. Translation Equivalence Revisited”. Poetics Today 2:4. 51–59.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988 “Translation and Backtranslation”. Milorad Radovanović, ed. Yugoslav General Linguistics. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1988 131–143.Google Scholar
199192. “On the Non-Algorithmic Nature of Translation Theory”. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia XXXVI-XXXVII. 85–91.Google Scholar
Koller, Werner
1983Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. 2 nd ed. Heidelberg: Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
Meschonnic, Henri
1973Poétique de la traduction [Pour la poétique II]. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Mounin, George
1963Les problèmes théoriques de la traduction. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Reiß, Katharina and Hans J. Vermeer
1984Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica
1990 “La contribution de l’interprétation à la théorie de la traduction”. Reiner Arntz and Gisela Thome, eds. Übersetzungswissenschaft: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven. Festschrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 65. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Gunter Narr 1990 528–535.Google Scholar
Steiner, George
1975After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vernay, Henri
1974Essai sur l’organisation de l’espace par divers systèmes linguistiques: Contribution à une linguistique de la traduction. München.Google Scholar
Wilss, Wolfram
1982The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar