Theories_of_translation.pptx

Mitzila P. Jodilla
Presenter
LIT 605 LITERARY
TRANSLATION

• Discussions about theories of
translation are too often concerned with
distinctions between literary and
nonliterary texts, between prose and
poetry.

• Some professional translators take
considerable pride in denying that they have
any theory of translation , then they just
translate.
• Instead of no theories of translation, there
are a multiplicity of such theories, even
though they are seldomly stated in terms of a
full-blown theory of why, when, and how to
translate.
• One of the reasons for so many different
views about translating is that interlingual
communication has been going on since
the dawn of human history (Eugene Nida 1991)

• The philological perspective on translation in the Western
World goes back to some of the seminal observations by such
persons as Cicero, Horace, Augustine, and Jerome, whose
principal concerns were the correct rendering of Greek texts
into Latin.
• In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe the
philological orientation in translating focused on the issue of
"faithfulness," usually bound closely to the history of
interpretation of the text, case of Bible translations.

• Some of the most important early contributions to the
philological aspects of translation were made by Luther (1530),
Etienne Dolet (1540), Cowley (1656), Dryden (1680), and Pope
(1715),
• but Luther's influence was probably the greatest in view of his
having directly and indirectly influenced so many Bible
translations first in Western Europe and later in other parts of
the world.
• Brief , philological looks at source text including its
production, transmission and history of interpretation.

• Most philosophical translation theories occurred in the period
after 1950.
• They were broadly described as “philosophical theories of
translation” with Ezra Pound and Walter Benjamin representing
the most important thinkers in what George Steiner dubs the
age of “philosophic-poetic theory and definition” .
• Their views were clearly influential upon subsequent theorists
such as Lawrence Venuti (Cheung Andy 2013)
PHILOSOPHICAL
TRANSLATIONS

• According to Ezra Pound, translation seeks first to
absorb and transform the ideas of the source text (ST)
rather than to reproduce a set of words.
• Benjamin (1892–1940) was a German literary critic, sociologist
and philosopher who penned a highly influential essay on
translation in 1923 titled ‘The Task of the Translator’, saw
translations as giving an “afterlife” to the ST and did not
therefore replace but extend the original.(Andy Cheung, 2013)

• For Benjamin, a good translation was one that allowed
the voice of the original to shine through, achieved not
by attempting to emulate the original but by
“harmonizing” with the message of the ST.
• Real translation is transparent, it does not hide the
original, it does not steal its light, but allows the pure
language, as if reinforced through its own medium, to
fall on the original work with greater fullness.

• Martin Buber (1878–1965) and Franz
Rosenzweig (1886–1929), who collaborated on a
German Bible translation in the 1920s, raised
after Benjamin.
• Their concern was to draw readers closer to the
ST world through innovative use of language; a
kind of Hebraizing of the German TT.

• Everett Fox has summarized Buber and Rosenzweig’s
translation principles,
• saying that “translations of individual words should reflect
“primal” root meanings,…translations of phrases, lines,
and whole verses should mimic the syntax of the Hebrew.
• Buber reiterated his point that the “Old Testament” has
never before been translated by writers seeking to return
to the concrete fundamental meaning of each individual
word; previous translators have been contented to put
down something “appropriate,” something
“corresponding.”… the text’s semantic characteristics but
also its acoustic ones.

• In 1975, George Steiner advocates a literary and
philosophical approach to translation opposing modern
linguistics.
• He regards translation as a hermeneutic notion which is
represented by an act of appropriation and assimilation
that finishes with the hermeneutic act of restoring balance
by manifesting the qualities of the original work.

• After a brief period of dominance in Europe, from about 1955
to 1975, the linguistic approach to theorizing moved into the
background, where it has stayed ever since.
• The various 'turns' have mostly been toward the social aspect
of translating.
• Different translation schools focused on preparing
professional translators rather than preparing researchers.
• These schools require many practical courses, which are
inevitably language-based, so that the students can learn to
compose text in their target language.

• Up to the beginning of the 1960s, linguistics was concerned
with descriptive studies and never paid attention to the
comparative ones,
• so there were not any significant works dealing with translation
theory, the emergence of two co-extensive grammatical
theories changed the direction of translation study
dramatically: Chomsky’s Syntactic Structure (1957) and
Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965).
• Generative transformational grammar with its legitimacy in
linguistics legalized Nida’s scientific work.

• According to Roman Jakobson, translation activity is
mainly of three types:
• Intralingual translation: an interpretation of verbal signs by
means of other signs in the same language;
• Interlingual translation: known as ‘translation’ proper.
• It involves an interpretation of verbal signs by means of
some other language.
• Intersemiotic translation: called ‘transmutation’ in which
verbal signs are interpreted by means of non-verbal sign
systems.

• According to Vladimir Nabokov, form and content of a
text are inseparable and so, a good translation should
render both as best it can.
• In 1958, Canadian linguists Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean
Darbelnet hold translation as a procedure which “replicates
the same situation as in the original, whilst using
completely different wording.
• For them, if this procedure of equivalence is applied in
translating, the stylistic impact of the SL (Source
Language) text can be maintained in the TL (Target
Language) text.

• Vinay and Darbelnet consider equivalence as the ideal
method for the translator who deals with proverbs, idioms,
cliches, nominal or adjectival phrases and the
onomatopoeia of animal sounds.
• During 1960s and 1970s, the concept of equivalence is
central to most translation theory. Translating is considered
“as a process of communicating the foreign text by
establishing a relationship of identity or analogy with
it”(Andy 2013)

• The American linguist Eugene Nida (1914–2011) is
recognized as the most influential theorist in twentieth
century Bible Translation and is best known for the
concept of dynamic equivalence, later renamed
“functional equivalence.”
• He began work on translation in the 1940s, but his theories on
equivalence came to prominence only in the 1960s when he
published full-scale, technical descriptions in two books,
Toward a Science of Translating (1964) and The Theory and
Practice of Translation (1969).

• He differentiated between two types of equivalence: formal
and dynamic.
• Formal equivalence (later, “formal correspondence”)
attempts to reproduce ST surface structure as closely as
possible, whereas the preferred dynamic equivalence
attempts to reproduce the same reader response among
target audience readers as that found among ST readers

• Nida simplified the multi-structure Chomsky model into just
two structures, termed “deep structure” and “surface
structure,” and posited that the translator moves between
them in the act of conveying meaning across languages.
• The deep structure is understood as the underlying feature
of communication that contains all the semantic meaning
in a given text.

• In 1965, J. C. Catford (1917–2009) published A Linguistic
Theory of Translation, in which he attempted to use a
Hallidayan and Firthian linguistic model as the basis for a
general translation theory. He went further than Nida and
others in adopting ideas from linguistics.
• insisting that, “the theory of translation is essentially a theory
of applied linguistics”. The most important was the idea of
grammatical rank, where he added to the concept of
equivalence the following two categories:
• 1. Rank-bound translation: each word or morpheme in the
ST receives an equivalent TT word or morpheme, enabling
precise exchange.

• 2. Unbounded translation: equivalence does not take place
at the same level or rank but exchange can take place at
the sentence, clause or other level.
• Catford states that “Translation equivalence occurs when a
SL (source-language) and a TL (target-language) text or
item are relatable to the same features of substance where
“ substance” can signify a relatively fixed range of linguistic
features levels and categories, and a potentially infinite
series of cultural situations.

• He introduces the concept of “shifts” between the source
text and translated texts(TT) which, he defines as
“departures from formal correspondence, in the process of
going from the SL to TL” .
• For him are two main types of shifts: one is level shift,
where the SL item at one linguistic level ( e .g. grammar )
has a TL equivalent at a different level (e.g. lexis ), and
• the second shifts divided into four types: structure-shifts,
class-shifts, unit-shifts and intra-system shifts.
• They establish equivalence between ST and TT.

• Katharina Reiss (1971) stands for the “functionally
equivalent” translation, requiring a “detailed semantic,
syntactic and pragmatic analysis” of the foreign text.
• According to her, the pragmatic translator analyses the
linguistic and cultural features of the text and also reverbalizes
them according to the values of language and culture.

• 4.1Text-Type Theory
• Katharina Reiss’ translation-oriented text-typology provides a
systematic approach to translation.
• Reiss sees translation as an act of communication whereby the
translator acts as a medium (secondary sender).
• This presupposes that a message has to be passed across,
from the primary sender (source text) to the secondary receiver
(target text).
• The major media are the source language and the target
language. The aim here is to produce a target language text
“that is functionally equivalent” to the source language text

• In order to achieve this functional equivalence, Reiss
proposes a functional approach of text-typology. This
approach takes into account the communicative functions
of a source text as a basis for translating into the target
text.
• Reiss’ text-typology includes a two-phase approach in
translating a text: Phase of analysis and phase of
reverbalization.
• The analysis phase basically involves establishing the text
type, genre and style (linguistic form).
• The phase of analysis is the most important as that is what
would inform the translation method to employ.

• Reiss identifies three text-types according to their
communicative function namely:
• the informative type (communication of content),
• the expressive type (communication of artistically
organised content) and
• the operative type (communication of content with a
persuasive character).
• There is another ‘hyper-type’ which she calls “the audio-
medial text type”.

• The main purpose of translatorial action is to allow
cooperative, functionally adequate communication to
take place across cultural barriers.
• According to the model of translatorial action the role of
source text is very limited.
• In the process of translation, Holz Manttari reduces the
source text analysis to a mere 'analysis of construction
and function' and gives no intrinsic value to the source
text, except for the realization of its communicative
function.

• She considers the roles and players in the translational
process, and views the situation form the position of a
professional translator:
• the initiator
• the commissioner
• the ST producer
• the TT producer
• the TT user
• TT receiver
• Her theory argues that the target situation is of utmost
importance to the translator and the translation is just a part
of the translatorial action.

• Translatorial action therefore involves not only the
translators action as a translation expert, but also the
negotiations with the client with whom the translator must
negotiate cooperatively.
• In specifying the factors that act as a guide for translatorial
action, Holz-Manttari clarifies that any action is determined
by its function and its purpose.
• In her theory the purpose of the translatorial action process
is to produce a message transmitter that can be utilized in
super-ordinate configuration of actions whose function is to
guide and coordinate communicative, cooperative action.

• Skopos Theory of translation is not known without Hans
Vermeer, a German linguist and one of the influential
figures in translation studies worldwide. He is a functionalist
and approaches translation from this angle.
• Skopos is a Greek word that means “aim” or “purpose”.
This word introduced by Hans Vermeer in late 70s as a
technical term for the purpose of a translation or action of
translating (Or Translational Action).

• According to him, when we translate, we should have a
purpose in mind, even before beginning to translate. He
suggests that this purpose should define our translation
strategy to reach a functionally adequate result, which is TT.
• Each text is produced for a given purpose and should
serve that purpose.
• The skopos rule thus reads as follows:
translate/interpret/speak/write in a way that enables your
text/translation to function in the situation it is used and with
the people who want to use it and precisely in the way they
want it to function.’

• 5.1 Interpretive Theory
• The Interpretive Theory is built upon four pillars:
• 1) command of the native language;
• 2) command of the source language;
• 3) command of relevant world and background knowledge,
and
• 4) command of interpreting methodology.
5. Socio-linguistic Theories

• Usually, translation is done by assignment.
• A client needs a text to be translated for a particular purpose
and hires a translator for a translation, thus acting as the
initiator of the translation process.
• The initiator is the person who initiates the process of
translation because he wants the ST to be translated.
• In an ideal case, the client gives as many details as possible
about the purpose; information about timing, setting, and in
general, the purpose.
• This information is important for the translator to accomplish
his/her task.

• A reader or a listener not only calls upon his command of a
language to interpret the signs but also on his world and
background knowledge.
• In the International Herald Tribune, the headline of one of its
articles reads: “Singapore SARS a ‘low risk.’”
• These signs can be recognized as English but at the same
time must be associated to relevant world knowledge to
understand what is meant by the author.
• An interpreter should take into account cognitive
complements.
• Native listeners and readers are usually not aware of
cognitive complements.

• Grammatical propositions, to be understood, require an
attribution of language meanings, texts require in addition
relevant world knowledge (such as: Singaporean
researcher’s illness (first case of SARS since the WHO said
in July that highly contagious disease had been contained
worldwide) is not likely to spread).
• The full interpretive process comes into play as soon as the
translator or the interpreter adds not only his knowledge of
language concepts to signs, but also his knowledge of the
world. In that case, translating/interpreting conveys an
intended meaning; in other words, the sense(i.e the
awareness of the things meant by a speaker.)

• The polysystem is conceived as a heterogeneous, hierarchized
conglomerate (or system) of systems which interact to bring
about an ongoing, dynamic process of evolution within the
polysystem as a whole” (Shuttleworth and Cowie 1997).
• Baker and Malmkjaer (1998/2001) arguing that, “Polysystems
can be postulated to account for phenomena existing on
various levels,
• so that the polysystem of a given national literature is viewed
as the larger socio-cultural polysystem, which itself comprises
other polysystems besides the literary, such as the artistic, the
religious or the political

• Polysystem theory was suggested in 1969 and 1970, sub-
sequently reformulated and developed in a number of later
studies and improved, then shared, advanced, enlarged, and
experimented with by a number of scholars in various countries.
• But, its foundations had already been solidly laid by Russian
Formalism in the 1920s (Even-Zohar 1990).
• In the Dictionary of Translation Studies polysystem theory is
defined as a theory to account for the behavior and evolution of
literary system.
• The term polysystem denotes a stratified conglomerate of
interconnected elements, which changes and mutates as these
elements interact with each other (Shuttleworth & Cowie 1997)

• As we know the literature of every country consists of
'original' writings and 'translated' writings.
• Each of these kinds can occupy the central position or
peripheral one in the literary system of a country.
• But as Munday (2001) indicates the idea of the literary
polysystem amongst other things, different literatures and
genres, including translated and non-translated works,
compete for dominance.
• Even-Zohar (1978) conceives that translated literature not
only is as an integral system within any literary system, but
as a most active system within it.

• Sometimes the primary position is occupied by original
writings and sometimes by translated ones.
• Even-Zohar (1978) admits that if translated literature
maintains a central position in the literary polysystem it
means that it participates actively in shaping the center of
the polysytem.
• Thus, if translated literature assumes such a situation it
would be by large an integral part of innovatory forces; and
in this case, it would play a major role event in literary
history of a country.
• Consequently, this implies that in this situation no clear-cut
distinction is maintained between 'original' and 'translated'
writings.

• Even-Zohar (1978) gives three major cases when translated
literature can occupy the primary position in a country:
• (a) When a polysystem has not yet been crystallized, that is
to say, when a literature is 'young' in the process of being
established;
• (b) When a literature is either 'peripheral' (within a large
group of correlated literature) or ' weak, ' or both; and(c)
When there are turning points, crises, or literary vacuum in a
literature.
• Munday (2001) believes that a literature is 'peripheral' or
'weak' and imports those lacking literary types. This can
happen when a smaller nation is dominated by the culture of
a larger one.

• Munday (2001) believes that a literature is 'peripheral' or
'weak' and imports those lacking literary types. This can
happen when a smaller nation is dominated by the culture of
a larger one.
• Even-Zohar (1978) admits that all kinds of peripheral
literature may in such cases consist of translated literature.
• This can happen at various levels.
• It may be assumed that in a long run no system can remain
in a constant state of weakness, "turning points," or crisis,
although the possibility should not be excluded that some
polysystems may maintain such states for quite a long time.

• This source-oriented approach dominated the study of
translation for a considerable period. Translation studies
were no longer confined to the text itself, instead in close
• connection with the social and cultural context.
• The descriptive, target-oriented and inter-disciplinary turn
in translation studies provided an impetus for manipulation
theory.
• Manipulation stresses the translator’s role and the various
constraints at the receiving end rather than the
equivalence to the source.

• According to Hermans (Hermans, 1999, p.8), the name was
proposed by André Lefevere who attempts to study translation
from a sociological perspective, that is, how translational
activities operate and function in the target society.
• For Lefevere, any work is not translated in a vacuum, which
serves the needs of the ideology and poetics of a given society.
• Ideology and poetics, for him, are the two major factors that
constrain the production and the reception of translation.
• He thought society is a super-system and literature is one of the
subsystems, or “system of systems”.
• There are two control factors influencing the interaction between
literary system and other systems.

• The first operates within the literary system, represented by
“professionals”, such as critics, reviewers, teachers and
translators.
• The other, outside of the literary system, is called
“patronage”.
• The first factor functions within the literary system, but
according to the parameters set by the second factor.
• Lefevere’s theory of manipulation successfully places
translation within a larger social, political and cultural
context and allows us to observe the way in which
translation interact with the target environment.

• The ideology dictates the basic strategy the translator is
going to use and therefore also dictates solutions to
problems concerned with both the ‘universe of discourse’
expressed in the original (objects, concepts, customs
belonging to the world that was familiar to the writer of the
original).
• Ideology is the key notion in Lefevere’s theory of
manipulation, which refers to the translator’s ideology which
he/she willingly accepts or the ideology imposed upon the
translators by patronages.

• David Katan (1999) thinks that that manipulation part and
parcel of translation.
• Thus, also in relation to manipulation, it might be claimed that,
in general, it is neither good nor bad.
• It simply exists especially in the case of unavoidable
manipulation.
• It can also be claimed that translation is manipulation
because no translation can ever be the same as the original.
• Certainly, it cannot be claimed that everything a translator
does to translation is manipulation, but certain strategies
under certain constraints and due to various factors result in
manipulation.
• Lefevere believes that translation, being “the most obvious
recognizable type of rewriting” (1992:9), can never free itself
from the political and literary power structures existent within a
given culture.

• The literary historian and translator Jiří Levý’ (1926–
1967) emphasized the need for aestheticeffect in
translation so that the beauty of the original was
refashioned in equivalent terms:
• “For the reader, then, the important feature of
translation is not mechanical retention of form, but of its
semantic and aesthetic values” (Levý 2006[1963]:342)

• "The Task of the Translator" as in the text on "Language
as such...", both forms — translation and poetry — are not
supposed to communicate anything but to establish a
relationship to language in general, which corresponds to
the "communication of the mental being" in the earlier text
• . The Aesthetic Theory gives some intimation of this: "The
mimetic impulses that motivate the artwork, that integrate
themselves in it and once again disintegrate it, are fragile,
speechless expression.
• They only become language through their objectivation as
art. Art, the rescue of nature, revolts against nature's
transitoriness". (AT, 184).

• The term aesthetic communication grew out of this
discussion.
• It was inspired by John Dewey (2005) and arose from a
search for a way to derive a view of music and music
education from the complex social and personal
perspective that understands music and music education
as something more than the sum of their parts:
• musical structures, musical elements, social settings,
human beings, historical lineage etc.
• Thistheory was applied to music education, but
constructed so as to be able to analyse all aesthetic
education.

• The idea of artwork becoming a "thing", as a result of an
internal dialectic process, is reinforced by the claim of its
— once a ready construct — becoming something
essentially independent of its creator.
• Some aspects of verbal behaviour (voice qualities, for
example) are natural indices of the speaker’s state, status,
attitude or origin, but also that all of our verbal behaviour as
a sender or receiver is also constantly monitored from an
aesthetic point of view.
• The monitoring of verbal behaviour both by the sendeand
receiver involves "arresting" the utterance and considering it
from a range of perspectives.
• These may be factual r or logical, but can also be stylistic or
aesthetic. Every text or utterance can be (and is) considered
from an aesthetic perspective.

• In 1986, D. Sperber & D. Wilson published their book,
Relevance: Communication and Cognition, in which they
proposed relevance theory.
• Relevant Theory (RT) is the development of Grice’s
Relevance Maxim and is regarded as the most important
and influential cognitive pragmatic theory in recent years.
• RT provides us with a new approach to pragmatics, which
attempts to answer not only philosophical question about
the nature of communication, but also psychological
question about how the interpretation process unfolds in
the hearer’s mind.
• RT focuses on both human communication and cognition.

• From the communicator’s end, to communicate is to
overtly claim an individual’s attention with the implication
that the information communicated is relevant.
• in 1991, Ernst-August Gutt applied RT to translation study and
put forward his famous relevance-theoretic translation
approach.
• Though RT is not meant for translation, it is powerful in
accounting for translation, which is the “most complex
phenomenon in the evolution of cosmos”.
• Gutt, in his book, Translation and Relevance: Cognition and
Context, presents the interpretation of translation and gives us
a new recognition of it (Zhao Yanchun, 1999:273).

• RT is concerned with language communication.
• In Gutt’s point of view, translation is a special form of
communication, which involves three parts:
• the original author, the translator and the target language
text reader, thus it should follow the general rule of
communication

• The concept of equivalence has been of particular concern to
translation scholars since it has been inextricably linked with
both definitional and practical aspects of translating.
• Becoming an essential feature of translation theories in the
1960s and 1970s, equivalence was meant to indicate that
source text (henceforth ST) and target text (henceforth TT)
share some kind of „sameness‟.
• The question was as to the kind and degree of sameness
which gave birth to different kinds of equivalence

• In an effort to answer the question of what is equivalent to what,
Koller (1979) distinguishes five different types of equivalence:
• (a) denotative equivalence involving the extralinguistic content
of a text,
• (b) connotative equivalence relating to lexical choices,
• (c) text-normative equivalence relating to text-types,
• (d) pragmatic equivalence involving the receiver of the text or
message, and, finally,
• (e) formal equivalence relating to the form and aesthetics of the
text (p. 186-191). Having identified different types of
equivalence,
• Koller (1979) goes on to argue that a hierarchy of values can
be preserved in translation only if the translator comes up with a
hierarchy of equivalence requirements for the target text (p. 89)

• Although the hierarchical ordering of equivalences is open to
debate, Koller‟s contribution to the field of translation studies is
acknowledged for bringing into translators‟ attention various
types and ways in which the then fashionable desideratum of
equivalence may be achieved.
• Peter Newmark is one of the founders of the Institute of Linguists
and a fervent advocate for the professionalization of translators.
• Newmark‟s Approaches to Translation (1981) and A Textbook of
Translation (1988) do not aim to promote any monolithic translation
theory but rather attempt to describe a basis for dealing with
problems encountered during the translation process.
• More specifically, Newmark replaces Nida‟s terms of formal and
dynamic equivalence with semantic and communicative translation
respectively.

• . The major difference between the two types of translation
proposed by Newmark is that semantic translation focuses
on meaning whereas communicative translation
concentrates on effect.
• In other words, semantic translation looks back at the ST
and tries to retain its characteristics as much as possible.
Its nature is more complex, detailed and there is also a
tendency to over-translate. On the other hand,
communicative translation looks towards the needs of
the addressees, thus trying to satisfy them as much as
possible.

• Aiga Kramina. Translation as Manipulation: Causes and Consequences, Opinions and
Attitudes. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org ›. Accessed on September 12,
2019.
• Behrouz Ebrahimi. The Polysystem Theory : An approach to Children’s Literature.
Retrieved from https://www.translationdirectory.com/articles/article1320.php.Accesded on
September 12, 2019.
• Cheung Andy. (2013). A History of Twentieth Century Translation Theory and Its Application
for Bible Translation. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org › ... Accessed on
Septer 11, 2019.
• Choi Jungwha. (207). Interpretative Theory of Translation and Its current Applications.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Interpretive-Theory-of-Translation-and-Its-
Jungwha/b49da828aab4a81176aa46c2ab4532002783380b.Acccessed on September 12,
2019.
• Essays, UK. (2018). Katharina Reiss Text Typology. Retrieved from
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/english-language/reiss-translation-oriented-text-
typology-theory.php?vref=1
• Eugene A. Nida (1991). Language and cultures in Translation Theories.Retrieved from
https://www.erudit.org › journals › ttr › 1991-v4-n1-ttr1474 Aaccessed on 10-9- 2019.
• Garry Jacobs and Ashok Natrajan Towards a comprehensive Theory retrieved from
https://www.mssresearch.org/?q=Human_Choice_Page5. Accessed on September 2019.

• Kirsten Malmkjær. (2008). Translation competence and the aesthetic attitude
Retrieved from .https://lra.le.ac.uk › bitstream › malmkjaer_revised. Accessed
on September 2019.
• Kliffer Michael et.al. (2004) Relevance Theory and Translation Retrieved from
https://journals.library.mun.ca/ojs/index.php/LA/article/view/771. Accessed on
September 2019.
• Poorya Zeynaldazeh.( ). Hans Vermeer Skopos theory of Translation
Retrieved fromhttps://dilmanj.com/hans-vermeer-skopos-theory-
translation/.Accessed on September 12, 2019.
• Ranganathan Shyam. (2007). Philosophy of Language, Translation Theory
and a Third Way in
• usta Holz-Manttari's theory of 'translatorial action'
• Justa Holz-Manttari. (2017) theory of 'Translatorial Action' .Retrieved from
https://www.certifiedtranslationservices.co.uk/translatorial-action.php.
Acccessed on September 11, 2019.

Theories_of_translation.pptx

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Theories_of_translation.pptx

More from ssuser438f97

Recently uploaded

Theories_of_translation.pptx