1.5 Classification of Translation

We all know that language is a very complicated phenomenon and Catford once said that “[t]he concept of‘a whole language is so vast and heterogeneous that it is not operationally useful for many linguistic purposes,descriptive,comparative and pedagogical.It is,therefore,desirable to have a framework of categories for the classification of‘sub-languages',or‘varieties' within a total language”(qtd.inShen Yuping 2002: 338).The same is true for translation and translation studies.Compared with language,translation is even more complicated as it involves at least two languages and cultures.Translation takes many different forms and is such a complex event that many scholars in translation studies tend to classify translation into different types and to study the “varieties” of translation.Williams and Chesterman(2004:89)in their The Map:A Beginner's Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies said that“translations are always unique,up to a point.The exciting thing is to discover a pattern within this variation.People are patternseeking animals,after all”.Actually,we are not seeking patterns for excitement; it is out of the requirement of our scientific research and for the purpose of knowing the nature of translation better.

Almost every mature discipline has its own taxonomy.A well-established taxonomy is a necessary for the study of a subject and for the classification of knowledge of the subject(discipline).It is significant for the studying of the specific aspects of the discipline.However,in translation studies,such taxonomy has not been established so far.Though many books and articles on translation have touched upon this topic and actually efforts have been made to establish a typology of translation by many translation scholars just as that by linguists to establish language types and text types in general,it seems that none of the existing typologies are well-established.The authors of the present book has no attempt at arriving at an exhaustive typology of translation,but for the coming discussion on the literary text,they will first give a brief review of some chosen existing typologies and try to find a more acceptable one.

The existing classifications are quite different.Scholars distinguish types of translation according to quite diverse parameters: direction of translating(into or out of the mother tongue),medium of translation(written or oral),degree of modification in the process of translating by translators or methods(literal or free),function of the ST or the TT(expressive,informative,vocative or pragmatic,literary etc.),integrality of translation(partial or full),content or subject-matter of the ST(scientifictechnological,institutional-cultural,or literary),genre of the ST(letter,notice,report,textbook,advertisement)etc.

Schleiermacher is a remarkable precursor in this aspect and the first one to distinguish oral interpretation from written translation:

We shall be able to distinguish two different fields[in translation]as well.They are not totally distinct,of course,since this is very rarely the case,but they are separated by boundaries that overlap and yet are clear enough to the observer who does not lose sight of the goal pursued in each field.The interpreter plies his trades in the field of commerce; the translator operates mainly in the fields of art and scholarship.(qtd.in Lefevere 2004:142)

Today we can see that Schleiermacher's classification is quite a rough one,but it is historically significant as his is the first move to call people's attention to the different features between the two forms of translation.Though we do have oral interpretation of literary works,it is certainly not the concern of this book; therefore we will not go into details about it,confining our discussion only to written translation,and to be more specific,literary translation.

It is noticed that most of the contemporary typologies are functional.That is to say,they classify translations according to the function of language and the aims or purposes of the translations.House(1977/1981: 188)distinguishes between covert and overt translations.The former is trying to keep the function of the source text and to assume the translation the status of an original in the target culture; the latter is a translation to make the receiver aware that it is a translation.In her essay “Translation Quality Assessment”,House has some explanation to her own approach based on the distinction between ideational and interpersonal language functions developed by Halliday.“The suggested basic requirement for equivalence of a given textual pair(SL and TT)is that TT should have a function—consisting of two functional components,the ideational and interpersonal—which is equivalent to ST's function,and that TT should employ equivalent pragmatic means for achieving that function”(Chesterman 1989:158).

Reiss(2000/2004)distinguishes four types of translation: content-focused,formfocused,appeal-focused and the audio-medial type.The first three types are obviously based on the function of language as is shown by the table below:

For the fourth type,Reiss holds that it can have any of the function of the above three text types.

Nord(2001: 47-51)tries to combine the considerations brought forward by House and Reiss,distinguishes between “documentary” and “instrumental”translations.She holds that the former aims at “producing in the target language a kind of document of(certain aspects of)a communicative interaction in which a source-culture sender communicates with a source-culture audience via the source text under source-culture conditions”.And the latter aims at “producing in the target language an instrument for a new communicative interaction between the source-culture sender and a target-culture audience,using(certain aspects of)the source text as a model”.Under the category(type)of “documentary translation”,one can find “comparative linguistics”,“Greek and Latin classics” and “modern literary prose”; under the category(type)of “instrumental translation”,one can find“instructions for use”,“Gulliver's Travels' for children” and “poetry translated by poet”.

Newmark(1988/2001: 39-40)in his A Textbook of Translation gives one chapter(Chapter 4: Language Functions,Text-categories and Text-types)to the discussion of text types.Based on Buhler,he identifies three functions of language: expressive,informative or vocative.He thinks that a text can hardly be purely expressive,informative or vocative; most texts include all three functions,with an emphasis on one of them.Under the type of texts with expressive function,Newmark lists serious imaginative literature,authoritative statements,autobiography and personal correspondence; under text types of vocative,he lists notices,instructions,propaganda,publicity and popular fiction.Thus,literary texts such as “serious imaginative literature” and “popular fiction” belong to different text types.

Obviously,the above classification of text types and types of translation do not meet our current demands.For if you turn to them to look for a separate “literary text”,you will get a loss or confused and do not know what a “literary text” is as they either do not offer a type of “literary text” or put those,to our common sense,belonging to “literary text” under quite different text types.

In their “Types of Translations”,Barbara Snell and Partricia Crampton classified translations into(1)non-commercial translation(as an exercise or for pleasure);(2)professional translation(literary and book translation including scientific and technical books,translation of fiction,drama and opera);(3)promotional and instructional materials including all other texts translated for publication,considered as the highest level of non-literary translation,including advertising copy or slogans,instruction leaflet,service manuals,instruction on forms,commodity and sales literature,captions,signs and notices,legal and official documents,contracts and tenders,scientific papers and technical articles etc.(Picken 1983: 109-120).Here,the classification is made in terms of the materials to be translated and literary translation is classified into professional translation.Such a classification is acceptable in the current context as we are discussing criticism of literary translation and most of our criticisms are on the professional literary translators and their published translations.

We are happy to see that in 1991,Newmark published his About Translation,in which he offers a five-fold classification and saying that according to the translation approach used in producing the target text,we can differentiate semantic translation from communicative and that according to the content or subject-matter of the ST,scientific-technological,institutional-cultural,or literary translations.This is of course a step taken further toward a category of separate literary translation.

What interests us is that in 2004,in an article entitled “Non-literary in the Light of Literary Translation”,Newmark(2004)said in his “Abstract” that “[t]he purpose of this article is to contrast non-literary with literary translation.… They differ essentially through intention(literary texts belong to the world of imagination whereas non-literary ones belong to the world of facts)and through the fact literary texts are about persons while non-literary ones are about objects”.Though Newmark is not talking about the problem of classification,actually he seems to mean that translation can be divided into two types: non-literary and literary.

Juan C.Sager is another scholar who has shown great concern about the classification of translation.As early as 1983,in his article “Quality and Standards:The Evaluation of Translations”,he made distinction between literary and non-literary translation in accordance with the “content or function of the source text”(Picken 1983: 125).But in 1998,in another article entitled “What Distinguishes Major Types of Translation?”,he again made a distinction between literary translation,Bible translation and non-literary translation on the basis of a number of parameters including the purpose of the target document,the relative status of the target document in relation to the source document etc(Sager 1998).The inconsistency of his classification is obvious.

In an article devoted to Pierre Klossowski's translation of the Aeneid,Michel Foucault said that: “It is quite necessary to admit that two kinds of translations exist;they do not have the same function or the same nature”(Berman 2000: 277).Foucault does not explicitly distinguish literary translation from non-literary translation.Berman explains that “literary” translations(in the broad sense)are concerned with works,and texts are so bound to their language that the translating act inevitably becomes a manipulation of signifiers,while “non-literary” translations(technical,scientific,advertising,etc.)perform only a semantic transfer and deal with texts that entertain a relation of exteriority or instrumentality to their language(ibid).

In China,many scholars have also tried to give their classification.The one given by Gu Zhengkun(2003: 305)seems best fit in with the current context: “Translation in its narrow sense can be divided into oral interpretation and written translation and they are both the transfer of the meanings and forms of languages.Written translation can again be divided into literary and non-literary translations.In terms of the forms or genre,literary translation can be classified into poetry translation,prose translation,drama translation,novel translation and specialized transformational translation(such as film subtitling calling for the considerations on the length of wordings and the movement of the actor's lips)”.

From the above discussions we can see that it is not easy to mark a clear demarcation between different types of translation and to give an all-round classification.But as far as the current study is concerned,it is practical to accept those typologies that make distinctions between literary and non-literary translation.Actually,despite the disagreement as to how to classify translation in the theoretical endeavor,it is quite common for universities to distinguish their courses and even certificates between literary and non-literary translations.

In the following section,the authors will focus on literary translation and our further classification of literary translation.