Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Translation Theory

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Translation between English and Arabic

  • 1968 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter briefly explains the stages of translation theory: linguistic, communicative, functionalist and ethical/aesthetic. It also presents the notion of equivalence in translation theories, with reference to the most prominent theories in translation, supported by examples from English and Arabic. It explains, with examples, Vinay’s and Darbelnet’s direct and oblique translation procedures, House’s overt and covert translations, Jakobson’s three types of equivalence, Nida’s dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence, Newmark’s communicative and semantic translation, Larson’s form-based and meaning-based translation, Halliday’s linguistic typology of equivalence, Catford’s typology of equivalence, Baker’s typology of equivalence, Koller’s notion of equivalence, Popovič’s types of equivalence, and Bell’s cognitive approach in translation. The chapter also explicates skopos theory in detail.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • As-Safi, A. B. (2011). Translation theories: Strategies and basic theoretical issues. Amman: Dar Amwaj.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. (1992/2011). In other words: A coursebook on translation (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. (2004). The status of equivalence in translation studies: An appraisal. In Z. Yang (Ed.), English-Chinese comparative study and translation (p. 1). Shanghai: Foreign Languages Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassnett, S. (2005). Translation studies. Vasa (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge (Taylor & Francis e-Library).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beekman, J., & Callow, J. (1974). Translating the word of god: With scriptures and topical indexes. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. T. (1991). Translation and translating: Theory and practice. London and New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation: Language and language learning (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1977). Recent contributions to the theory of innate ideas: Summary of oral presentation. In J. Searle (Ed.), Philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwish, A. (2010). Elements of translation. Melbourne: Writescope.

    Google Scholar 

  • Even-Zohar, I. (1979). Polysystem theory. Poetic Today,1(1978), 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Even-Zohar, I. (1997). Itamar Even-Zohar: Polysystem studies 1990. International Journal for Theory and Analysis of Literature and Communication, 11(1), 88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Even-Zohar, I. (2000). The position of translated literature within the literary polysystem. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp. 192–197). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frawley, W. (1984). Prolegomenon to a theory of translation. In W. Frawley (Ed.), Translation: Literary, linguistic, and philosophical perspectives. London and Toronto: Associated University Presses.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentzler, E. (2001). Contemporary translation theories. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1971). Linguistic function and literary style: An inquiry into the language of William Golding’s The inheritors. In S. B. Chatman (Ed.), Literary style: A symposium (pp. 330–365). London and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (2001). Towards a theory of good translation. In E. Steiner & C. Yallop (Eds.), Exploring translation and multilingual text production: Beyond content (pp. 13–18). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (2007). Language and education. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, M. (2000). A beginner’s course in legal translation: The case of culture-bound terms. ASTTI/ETI,2(24), 357–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, P. (2009). Compare and contrast two theoretical approaches to translation in Zainurrahman. The theories of translation from history to procedures. Language and Education. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=enandq=De+Waard+NidaandbtnG=Searchandas_ylo=andas_vis=0#8.

  • Holz-Mänttäri, J. (1984). Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Academiae Scientarum Fennicae.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, J. (2001, January). Translation quality assessment: Linguistic description versus social evaluation. Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs, 46(2), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.7202/003141ar.

  • House, J. (2015). Translation quality assessment: Past and present. In Translation: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 241–264). London and Chicago: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson, R. (1959/1966/2000). On linguistic aspects of translation. In R. A. Brower (Ed.), On translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. (1998). Equivalence. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopaedia of translation studies. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koller, W. (1976/1979). Einführung die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koller, W. (1989). Equivalence in translation theory. In A. Chesterman (Ed. & Trans.), Readings in translation theory (pp. 99–104). Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura Ab.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koller, W. (1995). The concept of equivalence and the object of translation studies. Target,7(2), 191–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, M. (1998). Meaning-based-translation. Oxford: University Press of American Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leuven-Zwart, K. V. (1989). Translation and originals: Similarities and dissimilarities I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manfredi, M. (2008). Translating text and context: Translation studies and systemic functional linguistics (Vol. 1) Translation theory (2nd ed., p. 97). Bologna: Centro di Studi Linguistico-Culturali (CeSLiC). https://doi.org/10.6092/unibo/amsacta/2441. In: Quaderni del CeSLiC. Functional Grammar Studies for Non-Native Speakers of English.

  • Manfredi, M. (2014). Translating text and context: Translation studies and systemic functional linguistics. Volume 2: From theory to practice (p. 158). Bologna: Centro di Studi Linguistico-Culturali (CeSLiC). https://doi.org/10.6092/unibo/amsacta/3219. In: Quaderni del CeSLiC. Functional Grammar Studies for Non-Native Speakers of English.

  • Mishra, P. (2009, September). Strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow etymological analysis of the English language words. Language in India, 12, 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation studies. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munday, J. (2008). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munday, J. (2009). The Routledge companion to translation studies. London and New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation: Text. Hertfordshire: Pearson Education Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmark, P. (1991). About translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmark, P. (1998). Approaches to translation. Singapore: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmark, P. in Munday, J. (2009). The Routledge companion to translation studies. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ni, L. (2009). For translation and theories. English Language Teaching,2(2), 78–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nida, E., & Taber, C. (1982). The theory and practice of translation (2nd ed.). Leiden: E.J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nida, E. A. (1959/1975). Principles of translating as exemplified by Bible translating. In A. S. Dil (Ed.), Language structure and thought: Essays by Eugene A. Nida. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nida, E. A. (2000). Principles of correspondence. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies readers (pp. 126–140). London and New York: Routledge (First published in 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. (1969). The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: E.J.Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nord, C. (1989). Loyalty instead of loyalty. Proposals for a functional translation typology. Living Languages, 34(3), 100–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity. Manchester: St. Jerome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nord, C. (2005). Text analysis in translation (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi B.V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nord, C. (2008). Persuading by addressing: A functional approach to speech-act comparison. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 26(2), 283–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panou, D. (2013). Equivalence in translation theories: A critical evaluation. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,3(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popovič, A. (1976). Dictionary for the analysis of literary translation Edmonton. Alberta: Department of Comparative Literature, University of Alberta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, K. (1971). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik. Munich: M. Hueber [Trans. E. F. Rhodes. (2000). Translation criticism: Potential and limitations]. Manchester: St. Jerome and American Bible Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakernia, S. (2014). Study of Nida’s (formal and dynamic equivalence) and Newmark’s (semantic and communicative translation) translating theories on two short stories. Merit Research Journal of Education and Review, 2(1), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snell-Hornby, M. (1988/1995). Translation studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, G. (1975/1998). After Babel: Aspects of language and translation. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toury, G. (1980). In search of a theory of translation (p. 159). Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venuti, L. (2000). Translation, community, Utopia. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp. 468–488). London: Routldge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venuti, L. (2004). The translation studies reader. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeer, H. (1986). Übersetzen als kultureller transfer. In M. Snell-Hornby (Ed.) (1990), Linguistic transcoding or cultural transfer? A critique of translation theory in Germany (pp.79–86). In S. Bassnett & A. Lefevere (Eds.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinay, J. P., & Darbelnet, J. (1958/2004). A methodology for translation. In J. C. Sager & M.-J. Hamel (Trans.) & L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp. 128–137). London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. (2010). A critical discourse analysis of Barack Obama’s speeches. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,1(3), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.1.3.254-261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendland, E. R. (2012). Framing the frames: A theoretical framework for the cognitive notion of “Frames of Reference.” Journal of Translation, 6(1), 27–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whang, Y. C. (2004). To whom is a translator responsible—Author or reader? In S. E. Porter & R. S. Hess (Eds.), Translating the Bible: Problems and prospects (pp. 46–62). New York: Continuum and T&T Clark International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilss, W. (1982). The science of translation: Problems and methods. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yinhua, X. (2011). Equivalence in translation: Features and necessity. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science,1(10), 1989–1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhuanglin, H. (1988). A course of linguistics. Peking: Peking University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Nizwa, Nizwa, Oman

    Noureldin Abdelaal

Authors
  1. Noureldin Abdelaal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Abdelaal, N. (2020). Translation Theory. In: Translation between English and Arabic. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34332-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34332-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-34331-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-34332-3

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation