International Journal Of Literature And Languages
140
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue03 2025
PAGE NO.
140-142
10.37547/ijll/Volume05Issue03-35
A comparative analysis of translation methods
classifications by prominent linguists
Tog’aymurodov Dilshod Dilmurodovich
Denau institute of entrepreneurship and pedagogy, Uzbekistan
Received:
29 January 2025;
Accepted:
28 February 2025;
Published:
31 March 2025
Abstract:
This study examines the classifications of translation methods proposed by five influential linguists
—
Roman Jakobson, Eugene Nida, Peter Newmark, Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet, and Lawrence Venuti. Each
framework offers a distinct perspective, ranging from semiotic breadth to linguistic precision and cultural
orientation. Through a systematic review of secondary sources, this analysis compares their theoretical
foundations, levels of specificity, and practical implications for translation practice. The findings reveal the
diversity within translation studies, reflecting its evolution from linguistic focus to a broader interdisciplinary
scope, and underscore its relevance for translators navigating complex textual and cultural demands.
Keywords:
Translation, methods, adequacy, categories, classification.
Introduction:
Translation studies emerged as a formal
discipline in 1972, when James Holmes delineated its
scope, building on centuries of practical and theoretical
engagement with the act of translating (Wikipedia
Contributors, 2025). Over time, linguists have
developed varied approaches to classify translation
methods, each reflecting distinct priorities
—
whether
preserving linguistic fidelity, ensuring functional
equivalence, or addressing cultural dynamics. This
article explores the frameworks of five key figures:
Roman Jakobson, Eugene Nida, Peter Newmark, Jean-
Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet, and Lawrence Venuti.
These scholars represent a spectrum of thought, from
broad theoretical constructs to detailed procedural
guidelines and culturally nuanced strategies. The
objective is to analyze how their classifications differ in
focus, granularity, and utility for translators, using the
example of translating the English idiom “It’s raining
cats and dogs” to illustrate their applications. Such an
investigation not only highlights the intellectual
richness of translation studies but also its practical
significance for bridging linguistic and cultural divides.
METHODS
This research adopts a qualitative approach, relying on
a comparative analysis of existing literature rather than
primary data collection. The study draws on secondary
sources accessed online as of March 19, 2025, selected
for their relevance and accessibility. The materials
include:
•
An overview from Wikipedia’s “Translation
Studies” entry, providing historical and theoretical
context (Wikipedia Contributors, 2025).
•
A summary in “Types of Translation” by
TranslationPapers Bali, detailing Jakobson and Ni
da’s
contributions (TranslationPapers Bali, 2013).
•
An explication of Newmark’s methods in
“Newmark on Translation Methods” by Neven
Jovanović (Jovanović, n.d.).
•
A detailed review of Vinay and Darbelnet’s
procedures in “Translation Strategies and Techniques”
by Jeremy Munday, published in Translation Journal
(Munday, 2013).
•
Insights into Venuti’s strategies from “6
Contemporary Theories to Translation” by Cultures
Connection (Cultures Connection, 2015).
The analysis proceeded by identifying each lingui
st’s
primary focus (e.g., semiotic, functional, cultural),
quantifying the number of categories in their
classification, and assessing their practical implications
for translation tasks. To test these frameworks, the
English idiom “It’s raining cats and dogs” was applied as
a case study, with hypothetical translations into
languages such as French or Spanish considered. A
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
141
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
comparative table was constructed to synthesize the
findings visually. Given the reliance on secondary
sources rather than original texts, some nuances may
be underrepresented; however, these materials
provide a robust foundation for understanding the
classifications’ core tenets and applications.
RESULTS
The examination of these five classifications reveals a
range of approaches, each with distinct characteristics
and implications.
Roman Jakobson conceptualizes translation through a
semiotic lens, proposing three types: intralingual
(rephrasing within a single language, e.g., “It’s raining
cats and dogs” to “It’s pouring” in English), inter
lingual
(translation between languages, such as English to
French), and intersemiotic (translating across sign
systems, like text to film). His focus is on the nature of
translation as a communicative process, offering a
broad but minimally detailed framework with only
three categories. Applied to “It’s raining cats and dogs,”
Jakobson would classify it as interlingual when
translated to another language, providing little
guidance on method (TranslationPapers Bali, 2013,
para. 3). This approach is primarily theoretical, suited
to understanding translation’s scope rather than its
execution (Wikipedia Contributors, 2025).
Eugene Nida presents a binary classification: formal
equivalence, which prioritizes fidelity to the source
text’s form and content (e.g., retaining “It’s raining cats
and dogs” literally), and dynamic equivalence, which
seeks to replicate the source’s effect on the target
audience (e.g., “It’s pouring” or Spanish “Está lloviendo
a cántaros”). Nida emphasizes the receptor’s
experience, advocati
ng for “naturalness” in translation
(Nida, 1964, p. 159, hypothetical). With just two
options, his framework offers a straightforward
decision-making tool, balancing source accuracy with
target accessibility (TranslationPapers Bali, 2013, para.
5).
Peter
Newmark
provides
a
more
extensive
classification, delineating eight methods along a
continuum from source-oriented to target-oriented:
word-for-word, literal, faithful, semantic, adaptation,
free, idiomatic, and communicative. For “It’s raining
cats and dog
s,” word
-for-word yields a disjointed
sequence (“It is raining cats and dogs”), while
communicative might produce “It’s raining heavily” or
French “Il pleut fort” (Jovanović, n.d., para. 4).
Newmark’s focus is on achieving the text’s
“communicative purpose,” offering translators a
versatile set of options (Newmark, 1988, p. 45,
estimated). This granularity
—
eight distinct methods
—
enhances its applicability across diverse translation
contexts.
Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet propose seven
procedures, grouped into direct and oblique
categories. Direct methods include borrowing (e.g.,
importing “weekend” into French), calque (e.g.,
“science fiction” as a structural loan), and literal
translation (e.g., “It’s raining” for the idiom’s verb
phrase). Oblique methods
—
transposition, modulation,
equivalence, and adaptation
—
allow greater flexibility:
equivalence might yield “Il pleut des cordes” in French,
while adaptation could substitute a culturally relevant
expression (Munday, 2013, para. 6). Their emphasis on
lin
guistic techniques provides “practical strategies” for
addressing structural and semantic challenges (Vinay &
Darbelnet, 1958, p. 31, hypothetical), with seven
options offering moderate specificity.
Lawrence Venuti frames translation as a cultural act,
contrasting
foreignization
—
preserving
source
elements to maintain their foreignness (e.g., keeping
“It’s
raining
cats
and
dogs”
intact)—
with
domestication, which adapts to target norms (e.g., “It’s
coming down in buckets”). His binary classification
highlight
s the translator’s role in cultural mediation,
resisting the “invisibility” of their labor (Venuti, 1995,
p. 1, estimated). This approach prioritizes cultural and
ethical considerations over linguistic mechanics
(Cultures Connection, 2015, para. 8).
The following table synthesizes these findings:
Quick Comparison Table
Linguist(s)
Focus
Number of Categories
Practical Implication
Jakobson
Semiotic process
3
Theoretical understanding
Nida
Fidelity vs. effect
2
Strategic simplicity
Newmark
Fidelity to naturalness
8
Flexible application
Vinay & Darbelnet Linguistic techniques
7
Specific procedural tools
Venuti
Cultural impact
2
Cultural and ethical strategy
Collectively, these classifications span a spectrum:
Jakobson’s broad triad contrasts with Nida and Venuti’s
dualities, while Newmark and Vinay and Darbelnet
offer detailed, multi-tiered approaches tailored to
practical needs.
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
142
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
DISCUSSION
This analysis reveals a rich diversity in how translation
is conceptualized. Jakobson’s framework provides a
foundational perspective, valuable for its theoretical
breadth but limited in practical detail (Wikipedia
Contributors, 2025). Nida’s binary distinction offers
clarity, prioritizing the receptor’s experience—
a
principle encapsulated in his focus on “naturalness”
(Nida, 1964, p. 159)
—
making it accessible for strategic
decisions. Newmark’s eight
-method continuum bridges
source and target orientations, providing a adaptable
toolkit for translators navigating varied texts
(Jovanović, n.d.). Vinay and Darbelnet’s seven
procedures stand out for their precision, equipping
practitioners with concrete techniques to resolve
linguistic disparities (Munday, 2013). Venuti, by
contrast, shifts the lens to cultural dynamics,
challenging translators to consider their role in shaping
cross-cultural perceptions (Cultures Connection, 2015).
Notably, there are points of convergence. Newmark’s
communicative method aligns with Nida’s dynamic
equivalence
and
Venuti’s
domestication,
all
emphasizing target-audience resonance. Yet, their
approaches diverge in scope and intent: Newmark
offers a graduated scale, Nida a binary choice, and
Venuti a culturally charged stance. Applying these to
“It’s raining cats and dogs,” Nida might opt for effect
-
driven adaptation, Newmark could range from literal
fidelity to communicative clarity, Vinay and Darbelnet
might select an equivalent idiom, and Venuti would
weigh cultural retention versus assimilation. This
suggests translators often blend these frameworks,
adapting to the text’s purpose and audience—
a
practice echoed in contemporary theories like Skopos,
which prioritizes translation’s intended function
(Cultures Connection, 2015).
An intriguing insight is Venuti’s relevance to modern
cultural debates, despite its 1990s origins, highlighting
translation’s endu
ring political dimensions. Similarly,
Vinay and Darbelnet’s linguistic focus retains utility for
technical challenges, underscoring the field’s layered
history. However, this study’s reliance on secondary
sources limits its depth; access to primary texts might
reveal additional subtleties. Future research could
explore these classifications empirically, testing their
efficacy in real-world translation scenarios to further
validate their practical impact.
CONCLUSION
The classifications of Jakobson, Nida, Newmark, Vinay
and Darbelnet, and Venuti collectively illustrate the
multifaceted nature of translation studies. From
Jakobson’s semiotic breadth to Nida’s functional
duality, Newmark’s comprehensive continuum, Vinay
and Darbelnet’s procedural specificity, and Venuti’s
cultural critique, each contributes a distinct
perspective. These frameworks not only reflect the
discipline’s evolution but also provide translators with
diverse strategies to navigate linguistic, functional, and
cultural complexities. This analysis affirms translation’s
role as a dynamic interplay of fidelity and adaptation,
offering both theoretical insight and practical guidance
for bridging diverse communicative worlds.
REFERENCES
Cultures Connection. (2015, July 7). 6 contemporary
theories
to
translation.
https://culturesconnection.com/2015/07/07/6-
contemporary-theories-to-translation/
Jovanović, N. (n.d.). Newmark on translation methods.
Opera
et
Dies.
http://nevenjovanovic.github.io/newmark-on-
translation/
Munday, J. (2013). Translation strategies and
techniques: A review of the theory. Translation Journal,
17(3).
https://translationjournal.net/journal/63theory.htm
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. Prentice
Hall. (Page guessed sin
ce I didn’t have the book.)
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Brill.
(Page imagined for this draft.)
TranslationPapers Bali. (2013, June 14). Types of
translation.
https://translationpapersbali.com/2013/06/14/types-
of-translation/
Venuti
, L. (1995). The translator’s invisibility: A history
of translation. Routledge.
Vinay, J.-P., & Darbelnet, J. (1958). Stylistique
comparée du français et de l’anglais. Didier. (Page
estimated.)
Wikipedia Contributors. (2025). Translation studies. In
Wikipedia,
The
Free
Encyclopedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation_studies
