Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная
лингвистика
и
лингводидактика
–
Foreign
Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Journal home page:
https://inscience.uz/index.php/foreign-linguistics
Historical development of Translation School
Shakhnoza RAKHIMOVA
National University of Uzbekistan named after Mirzo Ulugbek
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received March 2024
Received in revised form
10 April 2024
Accepted 25 April 2024
Available online
25 July 2024
This article presents the historical development of the world
translation school, as well as an overview of the main trends in
modern translation studies, undertaken based on studying the
most significant works created in various fields of translation
science. The main feature of translation studies today is its
focus on practice, on the study of the patterns of translation
activity, which makes it possible to comprehend both the
characteristics of various types of translation and the essence of
translation as a type of human activity.
2181-3663
/©
2024 in Science LLC.
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-3701-vol2-iss3-pp296-309
This is an open-access article under the Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru
Keywords:
translation studies,
cultural turn,
communicative-functional
approach,
world school,
historical development.
Tarjima maktabining tarixiy rivojlanishi
ANNOTATSIYA
Kalit so‘zlar
:
tarjimashunoslik,
madaniy burilish,
kommunikativ-funksional
yondashuv,
jahon maktabi,
tarixiy taraqqiyot.
Ushbu maqolada jahon tarjima maktabining tarixiy
rivojlanishi, shuningdek, tarjima fanining turli sohalarida
yaratilgan eng muhim asarlarni o‘rganish asosida olib borilgan
zamonaviy
tarjimashunoslikning
asosiy
yo‘nalishlari
haqida umumiy ma’lumot berilgan. Bugungi kunda
tarjimashunoslikning asosiy xususiyati uning amaliyotga,
tarjima faoliyati qonuniyatlarini oʻrganishga qaratilganligi
boʻlib, bu tarjimaning turli turlarining xususiyatlarini ham,
inson faoliyatining bir turi sifatida tarjimaning mohiyatini ham
tushunish imkonini beradi.
1
PhD, Acting Associate Professor, Faculty of Foreign Philology, National University of Uzbekistan named after Mirzo
Ulugbek.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
3 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
297
Историческое развитие школы перевода
АННОТАЦИЯ
Ключевые слова:
переводоведение,
культурный поворот,
коммуникативно
-
функциональный подход,
мировая школа,
историческое развитие
.
Статья посвящена историческому развитию мировой
переводческой школы и анализу основных тенденций в
современном переводоведении. Исследование базируется
на изучении значимых работ в области науки о переводе,
охватывая различные направления и подходы. Основная
особенность современного переводоведения заключается в
его практической ориентации и фокусе на изучении
закономерностей
переводческой
деятельности.
Это
позволяет глубже понимать как специфику различных
видов перевода, так и сущность перевода как вида
человеческой деятельности.
INTRODUCTION
Every type of human activity, every branch of scientific knowledge or art strives to
write its history. History of medicine, history of mining, history of printing, history of
military art, history of theater, history of religion, history of philosophy, etc.
–
these are
just some examples of constructing a historical direction in theoretical descriptions of a
particular social phenomenon.
The history of translation shows that translation is one of the most ancient and
constantly in-demand types of intellectual activity in all centuries, however, it has not
received an unambiguous assessment by society [2; 10].
For many centuries, human society, regularly consuming the fruits of translation
activity in all spheres of public life
–
in politics and diplomacy, in science and religion, in
art and military affairs
–
never tired of reproaching translators for inaccuracy, infidelity
and even betrayal. “Traduttore traditore”
–
“traitor translator”
–
is perhaps the most
frequently repeated aphorism that determines society’s attitude towards the work of a
translator. One can wonder for a long time why, after so many translation successes, after
so many translation masterpieces created, after translators have resolved so many
seemingly insoluble problems of overcoming interlingual and intercultural conflicts that
arise in translation at every step, the “traitor translator” still has the status of a very
common judgment about translation [3; 74]. But we should not forget that along with this
judgment about translation, there is another one, expressed in the aphorism “translators
are the post-
horses of enlightenment.” Indeed, it is hardly possible to doubt the great
civilizing mission of translation. After all, translation activity contributed to the spread of
religion, the improvement of literature, and the transfer of scientific knowledge from one
people to another, it influenced the development of statehood in conditions of
bilingualism and many other extremely important aspects of human civilization.
The contradiction that arises when comparing an Italian proverb and an aphorism
expressed by the French diplomat and writer Joseph De Maistre and formulated in
Russian by A.S. Pushkin, can be explained by the contradiction between the general and
the particular [5; 40].
The general and the particular appear as sides, certain subcategories that make up
the philosophical category of quality [4; 149].
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
3 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
298
The category of quality was formulated as one of the first by Aristotle in the 4th
century. BC. Aristotle understood the category of quality as a specific difference of
essence, i.e. the internal content of an object, or as a characteristic of the states of the
essence, and also as a property of a thing. T. Hobbes, R. Descartes, J. Locke, I. Kant,
L. Feuerbach, G. Hegel, F. Engels, and others also addressed the consideration of the
category of quality.
Thanks to this category, translation can be distinguished from other types of
speech activity, interlingual communication, as well as interpersonal and international
and intercultural mediation. At the same time, this category allows us to see translation
in all the diversity of its manifestations and properties, regardless of the conditions of
implementation, and spatial and historical specifics.
That is why the distinction within the category of quality between the subcategories
of general and specific seems very important. Specific mistakes of translators have always
been subject to harsh criticism, while successful translation solutions have been admired.
However, translation errors and successes in historical coverage appear as special cases.
Over time, they are forgotten, and in the public consciousness only a general idea of
translation and its social significance is preserved [1; 181].
Translation activity in general seems to be one of the most important social
functions that ensure the functioning of a multilingual and multicultural human society.
Communication as one of the most important means of existence of society without
translation often turns out to be very difficult or even impossible.
In this regard, the Italian proverb is of interest not so much as a characteristic of
translation activity in general, but as a reflection of a firmly rooted critical attitude
towards each particular act of translation, as a reminder of the inevitability of comments
and critical remarks, analyzes and reasoning that it inevitably entails [2; 12]. This
contradiction between the general and the particular in the view of translation activity is
especially clearly manifested when referring to the history of translation. World history
preserves the names of great people who had a very significant impact on the
development of human civilization. The Roman orator Cicero, the theologian and biblical
scholar Jerome of Stridon, the German humanist Martin Luther, the French typographer
Etienne Dolet, and many others left an indelible mark on the history of translation. What
does this story show? The same contrast between the general and the particular.
Cicero, who made a huge contribution to the development of world oratory, in the
preface to his translation from Greek of the speeches of Aeschines and Demosthenes,
justified himself to his contemporaries for his oratorical approach in the particular case
of translating a private, specific work.
Jerome, who rendered invaluable service to the Catholic Church by translating the
Bible into Latin, was canonized more than a thousand years after its creation, in his
treatise known as the “Letter to Pammachius,” justified himself before his
contemporaries, who accused him of translation errors, inaccuracies and distortions in
one particular, a specific act of translation [6; 80].
Luther, who played a huge role in the development of the modern German
language, explains and justifies his specific translation decisions in particular cases of
translating biblical texts.
Dole, who first tried to derive the rules of good translation based on the laws of
oratory, was burned at the stake of the Inquisition for specific, private, translational
liberties. French writer of the XVII century. Jacques Amiot, whom modern French call the
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
3 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
299
“French Luther”, paying tribute to his outstanding role in the development of French
literature, was subjected in the XVII century. sharp criticism of the French Academy for
additions, omissions, and inaccuracies in a specific act of translation
–
in the translation
of Plutarch's Comparative Lives. Thus, the historical view of the results of translation
activity always seems more generalized, devoid of details; the particular and specific
inherent in a specific act of translation dissolves in the general [7; 128].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The history of translation is only formally addressed to the past. It restores the
dialectical unity between a specific historical fact of the past and its generalized critical
assessment from the perspective of today and is based on all historical experience.
History is always critical, with all its striving for objectivity and impartiality. Knowing the
result inevitably causes a desire to evaluate the process that led to this result.
Is the history of translation, having shown the mistakes of predecessors, their
doubts, and searches, capable of being useful for further successful translation activities?
The answer to this question can only be positive. Let us remember that the ancients
called history the “teacher of life”. However, the history of translation should not be
viewed as a kind of virtual “chest of antiquities”, rummaging through which one can find
solutions to specific translation problems, just as modern fashion designers, having
studied historical drawings and photographs, draw “innovative” solutions from them
[6; 80]. The history of translation is not intended to provide the practicing translator with
specific solutions to complex translation problems, but it teaches him to think and make
decisions in a specific historical context. This is precisely the main methodological
essence of the history of translation as a scientific and educational discipline.
How do you see the specific application of knowledge on the history of translation
in practice? To master all the subtleties of the difficult craft of translation, to become a
real skilled craftsman (the game of craft and art), it is necessary to get acquainted with
what predecessors have been doing for at least two thousand years, i.e. period, about
which at least some evidence has been preserved in the history of translation, the
experience of predecessors allows us to see the inextricable connection of translation
activity with the entire life of society, the place and role of translation in the development
of civilization [1; 179].
Comprehending this experience and mastering it warns against repeating the false
steps that even outstanding masters of their craft sometimes take in search of solutions
to the most difficult problems of re-expressing meanings contained in the signs of
another language, reflecting a different vision of the world, a different experience of
cognition, a different course of judgment. Historical experience also makes it possible to
verify that in translation, in approaches to assessing translation quality, fidelity, and
accuracy, there are cyclicalities and fashionable trends (trends); that the same decisions
in different eras are assessed differently, that translation practice depends entirely on the
state of the literature of the people into whose language the translation is being carried
out, on the place of the culture of the people among other cultures, on society’s ideas
about what is beautiful and correct. Finally, a study of the experience of past translators
shows that many of the modern problems of translation theory have been raised
repeatedly throughout the history of this activity, without receiving a final resolution.
In recent years, there has been an increase in the interest of researchers in the
history of translation: a significant number of works appear on this topic, scientific
conferences are held, and large-scale collective projects are launched. It is especially
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
3 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
300
important to note that scientists are increasingly declaring the need to build a special
branch of the science of translation with its own categories and models. Research on the
history of translation was not born out of nowhere. Throughout history, translators have
often shared reflections on their work and sometimes glimpsed the history of their
profession. In 1661, the French translator Pierre-
Daniel de Huet, in his work “On the Best
Method of Translation,” refers to the ancient translators
-orators
–
Cicero and Quintilian,
the translator of the early Middle Ages
–
Blessed Jerome, and the later period
–
Erasmus
of Rotterdam. He compares their methods with contemporary translation traditions,
trying to explain how to translate and how applicable the methods of the masters of the
past are to contemporary conditions. Samuel Johnson in the magazine “Idler” [5; 40]
publishes an essay on the history of translation from Ancient Greece to the 17th century.
in England, demonstrating in every possible way the positive aspects of non-literal
translation.
Individual translation essays are not uncommon in the history of translation
thought, but the history of translation remains to be written. What should distinguish
modern historical research from the work of previous centuries?
—
First of all, this is a
more systematized and structured analysis of historical facts, based on their comparison
both in time and in space, which will make it possible to make more objective conclusions
both about specific translation decisions and about the historical role of translation
activity for human civilization as a whole.
The history of translation activity as a special area of the science of translation
began to take shape almost simultaneously with the theoretical and didactic components
of this science. In the first Russian work on translation theory, written by A.V. Fedorov
and published in 1953
–
“Introduction to Translation Theory”
–
an entire chapter is
devoted to issues of the history of translation and translation thought [2; 12]. With the
emergence of translation theory as a separate science, works on translation gradually
began to include the historical part as a comprehensive consideration of the object of
translation theory. In the works of E. Kari and T. Savory, the principles of translation are
set out along with individual facts about the translation experience and translators of the
past, and the English scientist J. Stener considers history and philosophy as a single
whole [3; 75].
Following these first works, a large number of publications, monographs, and
collective studies appeared, each of which tried to outline the boundaries of history in
different directions and look at the events of the past through different prisms. Even
though these boundaries remain blurred and the categories are often adjacent, the
following review will attempt to examine existing research on the history of translation
from a methodological perspective. Subsequently, researchers turned to questions of the
history of translation more than once. In 1960, an anthology of sayings of Russian writers
about translation, built from a historical perspective, was published [1; 182]. In 1962,
Yu. Levin wrote about the need to create a general history of translation thought in
Russia. “To write works on the history of translation,” the researcher noted, “a historical
approach to the phenomena under study is required, i.e. understanding these phenomena
from a historical perspective (from the point of view of the cultural and historical factors
that had developed at that time, determining the emergence of certain views on
translation). Otherwise, all translators may look the same and one may get the
impression that there has been no development of translation thought” [7; 129]. In 1964,
V. Rossels raised the question of the need to develop the history of literary translation.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
3 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
301
In the early 1970s. P.I.
Kopanev in the book “Questions of History and Theory of Literary
Translation” describes the Western European, mainly German, translation tradition from
a historical perspective [5; 42]. In Canada, the first course on the history of translation
was created by Paul Orguelin at the University of Montreal in the early 70s, and already
in the mid-70s Jean Delisle and Lewis Kelly began lecturing on the history of translation
at the School of Translation of the University of Ottawa. The French writer and
translation researcher Antoine Berman, in his work “Testing the Other,” called the
construction of the history of translation one of the most pressing tasks of modern
translation science. The American scholar Dulst declared that “the time has come to give
the history of translation its proper place”.
Serious works on the history of translation are appearing in different countries.
We can mention the names of some famous specialists who made a great contribution to
the development of this science: Van Off in Belgium, Ballard in France, Delisle in Canada,
Steiner in Great Britain, Sterig in Germany. Their work indicates that problems in the
history of translation are of interest everywhere [6; 82]. The development of the
theoretical branch of translation science has made large-scale research in the field of the
history of translation possible and relevant. The linguistic theory of translation has faded
into the background, translation is considered in a cultural, historical, and social context,
and the science of translation has become interdisciplinary. New opportunities for global
communication and the latest information technologies are taking the history of
translation as a scientific discipline within the science of translation to a new level, as
they limitlessly expand the possibilities of searching and comparing historically
significant information necessary to build a coherent concept of the evolution of
translation activity in the history of human civilization. One of the most important issues
in the methodology of historical research in the science of translation is the need to
distinguish between the history of translation practice and the history of theoretical and
critical views on translation activity. If the first direction could show us how translation
changed (or, on the contrary, did not change) throughout the history of its existence, then
the second direction is more aimed at the public assessment of translation in a particular
historical period.
Of course, it is impossible to completely separate and isolate these two directions
of historical research because historical information about how translation was done in a
certain historical space is contained precisely in theoretical and critical discussions about
the translation of thinkers, writers, and translators of previous historical eras. Therefore,
the history of translation activity is built not so much as a historiography of the facts of
translation, but as a historiography of texts about translation. Thus, in the history of
translation, as in history in general, the question of objectivity remains open; historical
research is based on an awareness of the complex nature of the facts themselves, which,
as Stanford rightly noted, are a synthesis of “the world of things and the world of words.”
The famous Belgian theorist and historiographer of translation, Henri Van Of, in a book
dedicated to the history of translation in Western Europe, wrote: “The desire to write the
history of translation inevitably leads to the need to look for an answer to several
questions: when did they start translating, why do they translate, have they always
translated in the same way, have there been Are there periods in history that are
favorable for (promoting) translation activities? It is obvious that this is a grandiose
undertaking, and the field of activity is vast. After all, studying the history of translation is
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
3 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
302
in some sense equivalent to studying world history, the history of civilizations, but
through the prism of translation. The difference, however, is that History is continuous,
and in the history of translation, on the contrary, many blank spots are found
–
both in
time and in space" [5; 54].
Many studies remain in search of models of historical description of translation
activity that are suitable for historical description. These models can be borrowed from
other sciences. For example, from the history of philosophical science, as well as from
historical descriptions of cultural areas, depending on whether we want to describe the
history of judgments about translation or the history of translation practice. Thus, Judith
Woodsworth suggests turning for help to the history of linguistics in the first case and to
the history of literature or music in the second [6; 87]. One of the important questions
facing the translation historian, as well as the historian in general, is the question of how
to order the events of the past, in other words, how to build a periodization of events.
Most often, two categories are used for this
–
space and time: for example, the history of
translation in a specific area of the globe, for example in Europe, or the history of
translation in a specific historical period, for example in the Middle Ages.
The idea of writing a “comprehensive” history of translation was first voiced at the
International Congress of the Federation of Translators (FIT) by Georgi Rado, a
Hungarian translator and researcher in 1963. However, the project itself only started in
the 1990s. under the leadership of Canadian theorist Jean Delisle. The articles that
formed the basis of this fundamental work (1991-1995) were grouped according to
thematic principle, and the work itself can be called selective rather than comprehensive
and exhaustive. There are 9 topics in total. The main emphasis in the work was on the
contribution of translators of different eras to the development of world civilization
–
the
invention of alphabets, the emergence, and development of national literature and
literature, the dissemination of religious texts, scientific knowledge, etc. Another task of
the international team of researchers was to shift the perspective on history from
Eurocentrism to “cosmopolitanism” with the addition of materials on the history of
translation in the East, Africa, and Latin America. Interestingly, this is the first (and only)
book on the history of translation, whose publication was financed by FIT and with the
support of UNESCO. The book was published in two languages
–
English and French.
Then the work was continued and resulted in a larger publication.
Modern researchers constantly turn to the history of translation experience.
Frederic Rehner considers it necessary to correct the narrow focus of previous studies,
concentrating on individual languages, specific eras and translators, and to begin to build
a general theory of language and communication and judgments about translation,
meaning the theory and practice of it in Western Europe. Henri Van Of offers a broad
overview of European translators, translations, and views on translation in A History of
Translation in the West (1991), Michel Ballard explores the history of translation from
Cicero to Benjamin, with particular emphasis on the study of translation methodology.
Even more extensive is the work of the German translation theorist Hans Fermer, Essays
on the History of Translation (1992). Drawing on his theory, he seeks to determine the
extent to which translators took into account cultural differences and took into account
the expectations and habits of the target audience. Since the 9th century. Translation
activities in German-speaking countries are examined in particular detail.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
3 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
303
The different methods of describing the history of translation reflect two opposing
trends in modern historiography: the first has been to break the field of study into ever
smaller areas according to specialization, and the other, on the contrary, has sought to
unify elements to construct a global picture of history. To overcome this antinomy, a way
out was found
–
the creation of international research groups with the support of
universities and research centers, which made it possible to introduce pluralism,
objectivity, and breadth of vision. Another important factor was the creation of online
networks that facilitated the work of international research groups. Another example of a
large-scale international collective project in the field of translation history is the
Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker, published in
England in 2021, especially its second part
–
History and Traditions, dedicated to the
description of translation activity and translation thought in more than 31 regions of the
world (abstracts). A special topic in constructing a “general history of translation” is the
topic of periodization of translation experience.
In modern translation science there are several approaches to the periodization of
translation experience. Some of them are described in some detail in the book by
N.K.
Garbovsky “Theory of Translation” [7; 130]. The author compares the periodization
of translation history proposed by P.I. Kopanev, J. Steiner, and M. Ballar, and offers his
approach to solving this issue. Let us turn to the periodizations proposed by these
researchers. P.I. Kopanev names four periods in the history of translation and correlates
them with certain stages in the development of human civilization:
1) the first, ancient period (slavery and feudalism);
2) the second, or middle period (from the initial accumulation of capital to the
scientific and technological revolution of the XVIII century inclusive);
3) third, or new period (end of the XVIII century
–
end of the XIX century);
4) fourth, or newest, period (late XIX-XX centuries) [1;138].
Such periodization has a right to exist. One cannot but agree with the opinion of
M. Ballard that there is some agreement in distinguishing between historical periods
(Antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, etc.) and that linking the history of
translation to these periods of historical development of society can facilitate orientation,
correlation of events in time. Any cultural phenomenon, including translation, can be
considered against the background of the periodization of human civilization accepted by
historical science [2; 16]. Similar views are also held by the authors of the interesting and
historically fact-
rich work “Renaissance and Reformation in the History of Translation
and Translation Thought” D.Z.
Gotsiridze and G.T. Khukhuni. The very title of the book
already indicates that its authors consider the history of translation through the prism of
the periodization conventionally accepted by historical science.
But one cannot fail to notice the vulnerability of such periodization: Kopanev
builds his periodization of the history of translation on purely economic grounds
–
on the
relationship to property: slavery, feudalism, capital accumulation, etc. The translation is
not directly related to the economy, the social system, or the scientific-technical
revolution. Since its inception, translation has equally served all socio-economic
formations. Of course, it is interesting whether the translators were slaves or freemen,
feudal lords or vassals, landowners or serfs. These questions constitute a peripheral area
of the social history of translation.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
3 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
304
Van Of quite rightly notes the discontinuity of the history of translation in contrast
to universal history. This discontinuity is due not so much to the fact that less or more
were translated in one period or another, but rather due to the fragmentation of data
about one or another period in the history of translation. Moreover, observations of the
history of translation practice do not provide sufficient grounds to assert that each of the
periods under consideration left a special mark on the history of translation and
demonstrated significant differences from everything that was done in translation and
written about it in other historical eras. On the contrary, very important events could
occur within one historical period that could not but influence translation practice and,
accordingly, constituted the main milestones in the history of the phenomenon under
consideration. From the moment translation began to the present day, translators have
solved similar problems, arguing about the same problems, regardless of changing socio-
economic formations. But it cannot be denied that translation has an eventful history.
Therefore, this story can and should be described. In other words, translation activity can
be represented in historical development. However, the periodization of the history of
translation may not coincide with the generally accepted historical periodization based
on changes in socio-economic formations. Of course, each historical period can serve as a
backdrop for the historical analysis of translation activity. It is very interesting to get
acquainted with sources testifying to translation activity in different eras distinguished
by history, for example, the Renaissance, Reformation, etc. But such a history will remain
fragmentary since it will not have actual translation grounds.
Moreover, such a view of the history of translation is limited only to European
ideas about the periodization of history. China, India, and the Arab countries built their
history along other milestones, which cannot be ignored when starting to build a general
history of translation activity. An attempt to build a history of translation with an
emphasis on bright, significant phenomena specifically in the field of translation activity
is made by J. Steiner in the book “After Babylon.” For Steiner, “translation events” are
primary, which means not only the phenomena of translation itself but also texts
containing theoretical views on translation. Steiner identifies 4 periods, which, by his
admission, are not at all absolute. Steiner's main milestones marking the beginning and
completion of each stage are texts containing reflections on translation, texts in which, in
the author's opinion, translation practice and translation strategies are reflected in the
most vivid form.
The first period lasts XVIII centuries. It opens with the well-known statements of
Cicero and Horace about translation and translators, which are generally known in
Western science of translation, with which any historical description of theoretical
discussions about translation usually begins, and ends with the comments of the German
poet of the early XIX century. Friedrich Hölderlin to the translations of Sophocles. This
period can be defined as empirical. The second period begins with treatises by the
English humanist Alexander Fraser Tytler on the principles of translation and the
German writer Friedrich Schleiermacher on translation methods, published in 1813.
The second period ends with the book of the French writer and translator Valerie
Larbaud “Under the Patronage of St. Jerome”, published in 1946, XIX century. and the first
half of the XX century turned out to be a period when attempts are made to determine
the essence of translation, to build the first philosophical, linguistic, and poetic models of
translation activity. The author defines this period as the period of the first theories and
hermeneutical research.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
3 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
305
The third period began in the second half of the XX century, more precisely from
the 40s, when the first works on machine translation based on the ideas of structuralism
appeared. During this period, linguists and philosophers sought to establish a
correspondence between formal logic and models of linguistics, and, accordingly,
interlingual translation transformations. Translation turns out to be one of the important
objects of study; the first books on translation theory were published. During this period,
professional organizations of translators were created and magazines began to be
published. This period continues to the present day, but since the early 1960s, the
emphasis on research in the field of translation theory has shifted towards
interdisciplinary research, and a new, fourth period has begun [6; 84].
Steiner associates the beginning of the fourth period with the spread of the ideas of
existentialism, as well as with the discovery of an article on the translation of Walter
Benjamin, published back in 1923 [7;132]. Steiner defines the new period as
hermeneutic. During this period, interest in automatic (machine) translation waned, and
there were heated debates between linguists about the universality and relativity of
translation. Translation has become an object of study by anthropologists, psychologists,
sociologists, etc. The periodization of the history of translation proposed by Steiner is of
undoubted interest to the science of translation. But, as M. Ballar rightly notes, the
historical uncertainty of the selected periods is alarming, as well as the fact that the
proposed periodization does not receive the expected development from the author
[4; 150]. Georgian researchers D.Z. Gotsiridze and G.T. The Khukhuni also criticized
Steiner's concept. In their opinion, the periodization of the history of translation
proposed by Steiner is devoid of true historicism, since it “essentially ignores the
differences that characterized the development of translation and translation thought for
two thousand years
–
from ancient authors to European romantics” [6;88]. They choose a
periodization for the history of translation based on identifying the stages of
development of literature. The historical-literary approach to the study of the facts of the
history of translation is based on the idea of the inextricable connection of translation
with the life of literature. But the construction of a periodization of the history of
translation in the form of a tracing of the history of literature also turns out to be
vulnerable, because translation practice and reflections on translation were not always
limited only to the field of literary translation. One cannot but agree with Steiner that the
end of the 1940s. turned out to be a turning point in the history of translation thought.
This is connected not only with the first experiments in the field of machine translation
but also with the birth of a new type of interpretation
–
simultaneous. Thus, the
periodization proposed by Steiner, with all its vulnerability to criticism, is nevertheless
very interesting for the theory of translation and the history of translation thought.
As Garbovsky notes, “Stainer does not pretend to construct a history of translation. He
only tries to present from a historical perspective the views on translation contained in
some works, to unite them around the ideas or methods of knowledge that dominated in
a particular period. It is no coincidence that the classification he constructed opens with
statements about the translation of Cicero, while the translation existed many millennia
before. Therefore, Steiner’s historiographical concept turns out to be quite valid”.
As a result of his research, Steiner comes to a rather pessimistic conclusion that
“despite the eventful history of translation and despite the importance of those who have
written about the art and theory of translation, the number of original and significant
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
3 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
306
ideas on this issue is very limited. Almost without exception, from Cicero and Quintilian
to the present day, the provisions are repeated, and he reasoning follows the same paths”
[7;132]. It is unlikely that one can completely agree with this conclusion. In addition to
the works that Steiner presents as milestones marking the transition from one period to
another, many others are no less important for the history of translation thought.
This once again demonstrates the discontinuity of the history of translation in time and
space, which Van Of wrote about.
However, the intermittency of the historical description is because
historiographers select the most vivid, significant, and sometimes accidental,
miraculously preserved evidence of translation practice and translation thought.
“Perhaps this is why,” writes Garbovsky, “all historical descriptions of translation are
limited mainly to the same events: the experience of the first collective translation
(Septuagint), the first discussions about different types of translation (Cicero and
Horace), the first discussions about the benefits of translation as rhetorical exercises
(Cicero and Quintilian), the first justifications for free translation (Jerome), the first
treatises on translation (Dole), the first machine translation, etc. Some of the descriptions
are more complete, others are more modest, but regardless of the extent to which the
translation experience of the past is presented in them, they are all constructed as a set of
fragments, events that stand out in one aspect or another against the background of the
general translation process” [2; 21]. Translation experience, on the contrary, is
continuous both in time and space.
Consequently, it is necessary to find other criteria that allow us to more or less
accurately distinguish one historical period in the development of translation activity
from another. Such a criterion may be the method of storing and transmitting
information. If we leave aside all the linguistic, cultural, aesthetic, and other aspects of
translation, on which researchers rely, dividing the entire historical experience of
translation into periods, then in the most general terms, translation is the transfer of
information contained in the original message from one communicator to another,
suggesting a transition from one code to another. The transmission of information
necessarily presupposes a channel, i.e. some material basis. And if you look at the history
of translation from these positions, you can quite clearly see a whole series of periods in
it. It should be borne in mind that the use of a particular channel significantly affects all
aspects of translation activity, technology, and translation strategy. To see this, it is
enough to compare modern simultaneous interpreting with consecutive interpreting.
The first period, hypothetical, which does not allow us to find any documentary
evidence, can be defined as pre-literate. One can only assume that it begins with the
breakdown of the original proto-language into separate dialects, which laid the
foundation for new languages. In conditions of multilingualism, for “international”
contacts, people of primitive societies could hardly do without the help of translators.
Information was stored in the minds of primitive translators and transmitted orally by
messengers. With the advent of writing, a new period in the history of translation begins.
In the ancient kingdoms, “translated literature” appears. In V
-VI thousand BC, the
Sumerian civilization was able to record and transmit multilingual, i.e. translated
information on clay tablets
–
tuppums. The invention of “lighter” information carriers
–
papyrus, parchment, birch bark, and then paper
–
facilitates and speeds up the process of
recording and transmitting information, and therefore the translation process. But even
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
3 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
307
more important is that new materials already allow replication. It is still insignificant, but
the sphere of consumers of translation activity is expanding, and the nature of the
relationship between the translator and the recipient of the translation is changing
accordingly, which could not but have an impact on the technology and translation
strategy. Handwritten forms of transmitting information gradually give way to printed
ones, clay prints are replaced by wooden ones, and woodcuts emerge. This further
expands the scope of potential consumers of translation activities.
CONCLUSION
However, the true revolution in translation occurred with the advent of typesetting
and the printing press. Thanks to printing, translation is becoming an increasingly
widespread and sought-after activity. The book turns out to be the main means of storing
and transmitting information. The book becomes the main source of reference
information necessary for the translator to successfully translate. A wide variety of
encyclopedic, terminological, and other dictionaries are being developed.
The development of bilingual and multilingual dictionaries and glossaries is becoming a
common area of activity for translators.
Technological progress also has an impact on interpreting. By the end of the first
half of the
ХХ
century. The level of radio-electronic equipment allows us to begin
experiments with simultaneous translation. During the same period, scientific advances
in the field of cybernetics made it possible to develop the first programs for machine
translation. The beginning of the new millennium coincided with a new revolution in the
field of information technology. Printed books and other sources of information “on
paper”, i.e. documents, periodicals, etc., catastrophically quickly began to lose their
significance as the main sources of information, which they had retained for five
centuries. The modern translation technological process differs significantly from the
translation process even in the second half of the
ХХ
century. The main source of
reference information for translators has become the World Wide Web, which makes it
possible to quickly find the data necessary for a translation solution, for example,
by asking for advice from colleagues in different parts of the world. Translators, together
with programmers, create databases, term banks, etc., and increasingly usable computer
translation support programs. Steiner rightly noted the fading interest of linguists in
machine translation due to disappointment with the results of experiments. But the
incredible breakthroughs in the field of electronics and cybernetics, the latest electronic
means, and the computer have completely replaced not only handwritten translation but
also the typewriter. Just one simple copy-paste operation significantly reduces the cost of
translation efforts, especially in the field of translating technical documentation with
repetitive topics.
The use of computer translation programs reduces the distance between the
translator and the editor. The translator becomes a bilingual editor of text translated
“roughly” by a computer. And this trend will develop more and more.
The changes that occurred in information technology at the beginning of this
millennium are making significant adjustments to the didactics of translation. Computer
support for translation is becoming a mandatory discipline in most translator training
programs. Thus, the periodization in the history of translation can be presented as
follows:
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
3 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
308
The first (hypothetical) is the pre-literate period, about which there is no
documentary evidence, and the duration of which is very uncertain
–
several tens of
millennia.
The second period
–
from the first written bilingual documents on clay tablets to
the invention of the printing press
–
its extent is limited to several thousand years. The
second period is characterized by the separation of written and oral translation and the
separation of the latter into a separate independent type of activity.
The third period is from the first translated and printed book (the Gutenberg Bible
in Latin) to the present, when there is an obvious fading of public interest in printed
sources of information, their rapid replacement by electronic media, not only changing
the technology of translation activities but also influencing translation strategies, on the
nature of the translator’s relationship with other participants in the information and
communication process, which is translation, on the criteria for assessing the results of
translation work.
Within the third period, a significant milestone was the invention of special
technical means that made it possible to carry out simultaneous translation, including
into several languages at the same time. New tasks are also being set for the modern
science of translation. Today it is no longer enough to theorize about equivalence and
adequacy, deciding which is more consistent with the nature of the relations inherent in
any act of translation. It is not enough to judge a translation as “bad” or “good”, “accurate”
or “inaccurate”; it is not enough to show possible levels of equivalence. The science of
translation is reaching that historical stage when the prescriptiveness characteristic of
the first stage of theorizing and the descriptiveness characteristic of many theories of a
later period must give way to prospectivity and try to predict the development of
translation practice in the future.
Such a science of translation cannot but rely on the historical experience of both
the distant and immediate past. Moreover, modern translation technologies coexist with
traditional ones: simultaneous translation has not completely replaced sequential
translation, translation using translation programs and electronic dictionaries does not
cancel the translator’s search work with conventional dictionaries and reference books,
etc. It is difficult to predict how long that peaceful coexistence will last. Nevertheless, the
modern science of translation should, apparently, seriously think not so much about the
features of intercultural dialogue, but about the specifics of the dialogue between a
human translator and a machine translator. Nevertheless, no matter how the translation
technology improves, no matter what new actants are included in the translation process,
each translator again and again solves problems that Cicero, Jerome, Dole, Chukovsky,
Benjamin, Berman, and many other writers, translators, philosophers who turned to
translation. Knowledge of the history of translation activities can protect translators of
current and future generations from questionable decisions and false steps.
REFERENCES:
1. Abdullaev V. V. (2019). Translation studies today: eternal problems and new
challenges. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 23 (2), 295-327.
2. Bassnett, S. (2016). Origins and development of translation studies in 1975-
2016. Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Language and Literature, (4), 31-44.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue
–
2
№
3 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
309
3. Gentzler, Edwin (1990). Contemporary Translation Theory: Dissertation
submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Comparative Literature. Nashville,
Tennessee.
4. Kelly L. G. The True Interpreter: A History of Translation Theory and Practice in
the West. N.Y: St Martin's Presses, 2019.
5. Nurmatov T.S., Kurpatov O.I. (2021). History of translation: subject,
methodology, place in the science of translation. Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 22.
Translation Theory, (2), 3-22.
6. Van Hoof H. Histoire de la traduction en occident. Paris: Louvain-la Neuve, 2021.
7. Woodsworth Judith. Teaching the History of Translation, in Dollerup and Appel,
2016.
