Paper 19. Reflections on the literal translation hypothesis
-
Andrew Chesterman
Abstract
This paper examines the well-known literal translation hypothesis and discusses its significance for translation theory. The hypothesis claims that as translators process a given text chunk, they tend to start from a literal version of the target text, and then work towards a freer version. The idea has been implied or explicitly studied by many scholars, and does not seem to have a single source. After some preliminary conceptual analysis an optimal formulation of the hypothesis is proposed. The paper then assesses the hypothesis in terms of the kinds of wider significance any hypothesis can have. The criteria discussed are testability, relations with other hypotheses, applicability, surprise value and explanatory power. Some of Englund Dimitrova’s research (2005) on the hypothesis is discussed. A rather different study, by Lieselott Nordman (2009), is argued to have implications for the broader contextualization of the hypothesis.
Abstract
This paper examines the well-known literal translation hypothesis and discusses its significance for translation theory. The hypothesis claims that as translators process a given text chunk, they tend to start from a literal version of the target text, and then work towards a freer version. The idea has been implied or explicitly studied by many scholars, and does not seem to have a single source. After some preliminary conceptual analysis an optimal formulation of the hypothesis is proposed. The paper then assesses the hypothesis in terms of the kinds of wider significance any hypothesis can have. The criteria discussed are testability, relations with other hypotheses, applicability, surprise value and explanatory power. Some of Englund Dimitrova’s research (2005) on the hypothesis is discussed. A rather different study, by Lieselott Nordman (2009), is argued to have implications for the broader contextualization of the hypothesis.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Preface ix
-
Section I. Some general issues
- Paper 1. On the idea of a theory 3
- Paper 2. Shared ground in Translation Studies 17
- Paper 3. What constitutes “progress” in Translation Studies? 25
- Paper 4. Towards consilience? 35
-
Section II. Descriptive and prescriptive
- Paper 5. The empirical status of prescriptivism 45
- Paper 6. Skopos theory 55
- Paper 7. Catford revisited 71
- Paper 8. The descriptive paradox, or how theory can affect practice 81
-
Section III. Causality and explanation
- Paper 9. Causes, translations, effects 97
- Paper 10. A causal model for Translation Studies 123
- Paper 11. Semiotic modalities in translation causality 137
- Paper 12. On explanation 147
-
Section IV. Norms
- Paper 13. From ‘is’ to ‘ought’ 167
- Paper 14. A note on norms and evidence 185
-
Section V. Similarities and differences
- Paper 15. On similarity 195
- Paper 16. Problems with strategies 201
- Paper 17. The unbearable lightness of English words 213
-
Section VI. Hypotheses
- Paper 18. The status of interpretive hypotheses 225
- Paper 19. Reflections on the literal translation hypothesis 237
-
Section VII. “Universals”
- Paper 20. Beyond the particular 253
- Paper 21. What is a unique item? 269
- Paper 22. Kundera’s sentence 281
- Paper 23. Universalism in Translation Studies 295
-
Section VIII. The sociological turn
- Paper 24. Questions in the sociology of translation 307
- Paper 25. The name and nature of Translator Studies 323
- Paper 26. Models of what processes? 331
-
Section IX. Translation ethics
- Paper 27. Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath 347
- Paper 28. An ethical decision 363
- References 369
- Name index 391
- Subject index 395
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Preface ix
-
Section I. Some general issues
- Paper 1. On the idea of a theory 3
- Paper 2. Shared ground in Translation Studies 17
- Paper 3. What constitutes “progress” in Translation Studies? 25
- Paper 4. Towards consilience? 35
-
Section II. Descriptive and prescriptive
- Paper 5. The empirical status of prescriptivism 45
- Paper 6. Skopos theory 55
- Paper 7. Catford revisited 71
- Paper 8. The descriptive paradox, or how theory can affect practice 81
-
Section III. Causality and explanation
- Paper 9. Causes, translations, effects 97
- Paper 10. A causal model for Translation Studies 123
- Paper 11. Semiotic modalities in translation causality 137
- Paper 12. On explanation 147
-
Section IV. Norms
- Paper 13. From ‘is’ to ‘ought’ 167
- Paper 14. A note on norms and evidence 185
-
Section V. Similarities and differences
- Paper 15. On similarity 195
- Paper 16. Problems with strategies 201
- Paper 17. The unbearable lightness of English words 213
-
Section VI. Hypotheses
- Paper 18. The status of interpretive hypotheses 225
- Paper 19. Reflections on the literal translation hypothesis 237
-
Section VII. “Universals”
- Paper 20. Beyond the particular 253
- Paper 21. What is a unique item? 269
- Paper 22. Kundera’s sentence 281
- Paper 23. Universalism in Translation Studies 295
-
Section VIII. The sociological turn
- Paper 24. Questions in the sociology of translation 307
- Paper 25. The name and nature of Translator Studies 323
- Paper 26. Models of what processes? 331
-
Section IX. Translation ethics
- Paper 27. Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath 347
- Paper 28. An ethical decision 363
- References 369
- Name index 391
- Subject index 395
