Translation: Context and Meaning

Youssef HARRAK

Mohamed First University

Faculty of Letters and Humanities

Doctoral Laboratory of Languages, Cultures and Communication

Teamwork on Space and Culture

Oujda/Morocco

Abstract:

Context, meaning, ethics of translation, and many otherumbrella concepts impose themselves on each translator inhis/her work. They are central, because the production of textsis linked to particular contexts and any context is highlyenmeshed in a specific culture; that is, to turn a text fromone language to another is to make it fluctuate between twocultures, identities, and histories. It is here where thenotion of ‘ethics of translation’ comes into play; theinterference of ‘ethics of translation’ in translation islegitimate, its role is to sort out a blueprint for thetranslator. It tries to avoid cultural clashes which may beproduced by translation and it also highlights the move ofidentity in translation; for translation does not onlycommunicate, but also transmits, influences, and re-writeshistory. The translator starts from context, meaning is derivedfrom context, the change of meaning is built on the change ofcontexts, and it is ‘ethics of translation’ which tries torationalize the process of translation.

Key Words: Translation, Context, meaning, and Ethics of translation.

Introduction:

1

The concepts of ‘ethics’ and ‘context’ are essential in

the study of translation; they have been the subject of

translation’ theorists since the birth of Translation Studies-

as an academic discipline. On the one hand, context restricts

every decision in the process of translation; it is a

‘professional judge’ in translation. To translate is to understand

context and to analyze all its features. Words, including all

other possible expressions or terms, are not uttered in

isolation; they belong to particular environment. Their

complete intelligibility is a question of context. People,

among them translators, understand texts in their relation to

particular contexts. Translators limit their source text to its

first context in order to come up with its first intention,

situation and meaning. For any step towards meaning

necessitates and calls for the original context of the

concerned text.

On the other hand, contexts require special attention to

ethics: translators have to start from context and move towards

ethics. That is to say, ethics of translation are contextually-

restricted. Each context may require different ethics. Here, it

is necessary to note that it is Lawrence Venuti and Antoine

Berman who have gone deeply into the tiny issues of “Ethics of

Translation”. Their points of view will be referred to in this

paper. Besides, ethics of translation are always subject to

certain socio-cultural circumstances. These ethics have to do

with the general sphere of spaces and societies; they are

related to the features of personal identity. They can be

religious or sexual or cultural or political or ethnic.

2

Respecting ethics in translation can be seen as a call for

intercultural respect. When translators respect certain ethics

in their translations, they consciously and explicitly seek

intimacy with other cultures and societies.

In this paper I will try to explain all the possible

contexts which are included in the process of translation:

context of source text, context of target text and translator’s

context. Of course, in each of these contexts there are

particular ethics to be respected and dealt with. Dealing with

all these elements will help showing the critical importance of

context in translation. Alongside, context will be dealt with

from two different perspectives: linguistic approach and

literary approach. Literary approach deals with context from a

pure cultural point of view; it is built on the cultural turn

in translation.

Context in Translation

“if we were to sample what people generally take

‘translation’ to be, the consensus would most

probably be for a view of translating that describes

the process in terms of such features as the liberal

rendering of meaning, adherence to form, emphasis on

general accuracy” (Hatim and Munday 10)i.

In our current world of globalization, constant shifts in

textual meaning and differences in analysis are said to be the

result of the effect of context. Today, interest in context has

never been stronger and the study of context is taking place

alongside an increase in its importance through all the stages3

of translation. Placed between linguistics and culture, and

influencing easily the process of meaning formation, context

occupies the center of translation studies. This concept

presents huge assistance to translators; it takes over all the

possible senses of any particular word/ text. It limits sense

and stops ambiguity. To be more precise, it is useful to go

through the main elements in the definition of the concept of

context context:

- “In context: considered together with the surrounding

words or circumstances”.

- “Out of context: without the surrounding words or

circumstances and so not fully understandable”.ii

This definition stresses the contribution of context to

the construction of meaning; it includes two maxims. One

requires that the circumstances which shape the surroundings

for an event or idea be brought across to us in such a way that

we can consider their tiny issues in our understanding. In this

way the process of understanding events or texts becomes smooth

and soft. The other requires that we ourselves should

understand texts in isolation, without their context. Thus, if

context has such far-reaching effects on meaning, if in

translating texts it influences the variation of meaning, it

seems valuable to weigh out the amount of these effects, to

ask whether they are rudimentary in translation or not.

The coming of context into the center of translation

marked a basic shift in translation studies. In the early days

of translation, translation theorists used to assign a primary

4

status to words and texts. For reasons that are partly embedded

in the close relationship between language and communication,

they thought that any translation theory has to be built on

linguistics. For a number of reasons, this claim can neither be

criticized nor praised. Yet, we cannot ignore the link between

translation and linguistics, at the same time we have to

clarify that “linguists analyze texts, but translators must

understand texts” (Nida 10)iii. This is the starting point of

the shift I am talking about; it is a “leap from the ‘text’ as

a unit of translation to culture at large” (Hatim 61)iv. This

leap confirms the idea that translation is not only a process

of ‘trans-coding’ meaning, but also a process of communication

(Hatim 61)v.

With this shift some progress seems to have come out,

after years of hesitation, at the traditional theory of

translation. To gain a precise understanding of this progress,

it is necessary to measure the effect of formalism on

translation. The indispensable role of context in defining the

narrower usage of language has narrowed the utility of

formalism in approaching translation. Though it is

complementary, form is no longer useful in translation, or at

least it has become secondary or it has redefined itself as an

element of content. Content and context are substantive origins

of meaning. Alas, it is germane that most of translation

theories, the old ones, are based on formalism. “It was not

necessary, they argued, to take into account the historical

forces operative in the construction of such texts” (Bennett

20)vi. Formalists used to put emphasis on “the form of the

5

message and translators took particular delight in being able

to reproduce stylistic specialties, e.g., rhythms, rhymes,

plays on words, chiasmus, parallelism, and unusual grammatical

structures” (Nida 01)vii.

When such explanations are encountered by a translator,

the question of content is posed and text typology is

highlighted. Exact translation of content and form of the same

text, I assume, is impossible. “Only rarely can one reproduce

both content and form in a translation, and hence in general

the form is usually sacrificed for the sake of the content”

(Nida 126)viii. For instance, in translating poetry it is

preferable to give up some elements of content. However,

content should be the primary concern of translators in works

other than poetry, medical documents and legal documents.

Normally, meaning, in translation, is usually brought from

elements ranging from translator’ passion for meaning, through

his curiosity to understand source text’ context and history,

to his divine mental power to approach his text cognitively.

Background knowledge, “mental imagery” (de Beaugrande)ix, and

manipulative skills are decisive factors in deciphering

meaning. The aim of translation theorists, then, is to arrive

at an indivisible whole of mechanisms which can explain the

complete process of translation. It is not a reasonable act to

ignore context or text items. Relying on all these tools,

translators may succeed in solving the most complicated

problems. This call to situate context and history beside

linguistics in the study of translation can be illustrated as

the following: 6

“Linguists have moved from word to text as a

unit, but not beyond… The overall position of the

linguist in translation studies would be rather

analogous to that of an intrepid explorer who refuses

to take any notice of the trees in the new region he

has discovered until he has made sure he has

painstakingly arrived at a description of all the

plants that grow there” (Bassnett and Lefevere 04)x.

Bussnett and Lefevere’s excerpt takes the big contextual

questions head on and does so meaningfully. It pushes towards

rigorous and stimulating ways in to new subjects. In recent

years, translation discipline has introduced new subjects; most

of them are related to culture, politics and economics.

Following the introduction of these topics, the old linguistic-

oriented approaches raised doubts about their usefulness in

translation. This is, indeed, only a direct call for

translation theorists to rethink the role of linguistics in

translation, but not to underestimate it. In other words, the

micro problems of translation cannot be solved relying only on

one independent approach. Perhaps there should be a mixture of

approaches. So instead of drawing comparisons between

approaches, I think, it is useful to go towards a contact-zone

where all approaches and insights may integrate (Baker 280)xi.

If we wish to indicate a gradual progress in the

discipline of translation, and speak of this as a contextual

privilege, or an advantage, we are talking optimistically about

the fruitful contribution of context to the process to

translation. Therefore, the ultimate thing is to choose an7

appropriate literary theory which can help us understand the

real role of context in translation.

Perhaps no literary theory can provide so many details

about context as the Critical Theory and Reader Oriented

Theory. Within themselves, they have perfectly valid ideas

which can help understanding the intensive interaction between

text and society. Since these theories stress the concept of

‘totality’ and ‘consciousness’ (Milner and Browitt 71)xii they

will undoubtedly tackle the issues of culture, religion,

ideology, economics, etc. Thus, we will be able to see the

factors which guide authors and translators to follow

particular trends, not others. This tendency to associate

social values and contextual circumstances with translation is

natural; on the one hand, it justifies the reciprocal

relationship between author and his own society; on the other

hand, it illustrates the role of society in guiding translator

and the role of the translator in guiding, if not, deceiving

society. That is to say:

“art is not created in a vacuum; it is the work

not simply of a person, but of an author fixed in

time and space, answering to a community of which he

is an important, because articulate part” (Scott

123)xiii.

Translation: Multi-Context Process.

There are three robust and different contexts in

translation; they belong successively to source text,

translator and target text. All of them are prerequisite to the8

process of translation. We cannot translate, as objectively as

possible, if we neglect them. We cannot translate, as

subjectively as possible, precisely if we have interests in so

doing, if we pass over them. They are decisive. They teach

author and translator, consciously or unconsciously, what to

exclude and what to include in their texts- translations. Aware

of these contexts means respecting their socio-cultural

specificities which may possibly include untranslatable

historical wounds. Translating a book about the egregiousness

of French colonialism in Algeria is a simple example of this.

That is to say, any translator has to see his text as a vehicle

“for the expression of a range of socio-cultural meanings”

(Hatim and Mundy 86)xiv.

Source text is the essential piece in translation; it is

the starting point of work as well as the target of analysis.

In a highly comprised form, taken out of its context, it

represents a dense scene for the translator. In a sense, source

text belongs to a foreign culture, written by a foreign author

and addressed to a foreign audience. Here, it is possible to

say that for a translator to understand a source text he has

firstly to investigate the distance between source text context

and its audience. Alongside this distance there always exists

circuitous roads and any ignorance to the traffic lights might

lead to an accident. Put simply, the translator has to consider

the ‘context of culture’ (Hatim and Jeremy 86)xv of source

text. As far as I can expect, context of culture has to do with

cultural beliefs, education and ideas. To respect it one has to

“recognize the verbal substratum of translation, but defines

9

translation primarily as an attempt at cross-cultural

communication” (Neubert and Shreve 25)xvi. If translation is not

thought through context of culture, a typical blur appears,

especially where cultural values are introduced.

“The translator is aware that a given item in the source has a set of

possible equivalents in the target language. S/he is aware that these are not

free variants but they are ‘contextually conditioned’. By ‘contextually

conditioned’ I don’t mean that in a given context you must choose A and

connot choose B or C then the meaning of that choice will differ according to

what the context is”. (Halliday quoted in Frankeuberg-Garcia 64)xvii

To defend context of culture, there has been a Socio-cultural

Model of Translation. This model disqualifies the notion of

equivalence. Its members see it as an act of misapprehension.

The Ambiguity of Meaning

IMeaning lies at the heart of translation; language analysis

is the basis of an effective communication. When one attempts,

in general way, to transform a particular message from one

language to another, one should first be rigorously sure of the

basic meaning. The translator should first understand the

meaning of his source text. However, meaning is not always a

matter of direct signification; there is no perfect and stable

relationship between the signifier and the signified.

Considering meaning, in translation, means moving between two

different languages; and most importantly, studying meaning in

two different cultures. Therefore, in the crossroads of

studying meaning in translation there emerges ambiguity.

10

The first step towards a meticulous examination of the

process of translation was prepared by the American translation

theorist Eugene Nida. He relied on the translation of the Bible

in order to go deeply into the tiny elements of translation and

his approach was linguistically oriented. To avoid the problems

and difficulties, basically meaning related, of translation he

applied the Chomskyan linguistic analysis. Most notably,

surface structure and deep structure (Hatim a,d Jemery 34)xviii

which will be discussed under the heading of equivalence. His

intention was to build a clear cut systematic mechanism of

translation. Nida’s book Towards a Science of Translating considers

translation as a science which can be approached systematically

(Hatim and Jemery 34)xix; it also raises the great concern of

Nida about the importance of meaning in translation.

“For Nida, analysis of meaning was a major

practical problem because his inexperienced

translators, some of them non-native speakers of

English, were sometimes confused by the intricacies

and ambiguities of the ST, especially multiple

senses, figurative meaning and near-synonyms” (Hatim

and Jemery 34, emphasis in origin)xx.

To explain the induction of ambiguity in translation Nida

distinguishes two major types of meaning: “referential meaning”

and “connotative meaning”.xxi Since the number of words that

translators can acquire is limited, the process of translating,

referring to ideas, will undoubtedly be confusing. This stems

from the fact that people’s semantic units are finitexxii. It is

obvious, then, that the question of referential meaning takes11

place not only in translation, but also in the same language.

Humans find it very demanding to use a finite number of

semantic units to talk about an infinite number of things in

the world. As a solution to this, Nida recommends that people

should put emphasis “upon the relative ambivalence of terms, i.

e., their capacity to have many different meanings” (Nida and

Taber 56)xxiii. This is also a call for translators to deal with

words, sentences and text as a polysemic entity. Perhaps this

can reduce the troubles which are caused by the limitedness of

signs.

As is mentioned above, “in most instances the surrounding

context points out quite clearly which of these basic meanings

of a word is intended” (Nida and Taber 56)xxiv. Initially,

translators have to come up with all the possible meanings of

the concerned utterance, then, they can identify its signified/

equivalence depending on contextual restrictions and

“semotactic marking” which is the “conditioning by the meaning

of surrounding terms” (Nida and Taber 56)xxv. However, to say

that the definition of a word in a dictionary is the most

appropriate equivalent is to stunt the concept of translation.

By its very existence source text, with all its components,

becomes overwhelmed by meaning. Sometimes translation becomes a

pious hope, precisely if source text words are carefully

chosen. Rather, if a translator succeeds in collecting all the

referents of an utterance, then he becomes able to translate.

Translation begins when semantic analysis ends and semantic

analysis starts at the beginning of translation. Through

semantic analysis translators seek the different meanings of an

12

utterance; their decision to translate indicates their triumph

on the polysemic nature of language (Derrida)xxvi.

“But we not only understand the reference of

words; we also react to them emotionally, sometimes

strongly, sometimes weakly, sometimes affirmatively,

sometimes negatively” (Nida and Taber 91)xxvii.

The power of connotation within the same language is

strong; its effect on translation is stronger. Having

connotation within the same language does not necessarily mean

experiencing the same connotation in translation. An utterance

which represents a source of taboo may reflect a positive idea

in target text and vice versa. No two languages are ever

adequately analogous to be thought as illustrating the same

connotative meaning. The locations in which diverse languages

exist are separate locations; the people who use each of these

languages are not the same; the contexts where each of these

languages is used are not the same. In Nida and Taber words,

connotation defers according to “the speakers associated with

the word, the practical circumstances in which the word is

used, and the linguistic setting characteristic of the word”

(Nida and Taber 92)xxviii. For instance, there are words which

can acquire special connotation when they are aligned with

members of a particular sex; they may become a subject of

political correctness. The same thing may happen if no

attention is paid to the compatibility of language with the

setting (Nida and Taber 92-3)xxix.

13

Whatever the richness of translators’ background, it is

probably definite that the question of translating connotation

demands prudence and caution. Connotation between languages is

connotation between cultures. Here, it is germane that the main

problem in translating connotation has to do with taboo. Only

“positive taboo”, the words or expressions which are associated

with the meaning of “good”, is effortlessly translatable. By

contrast, if source text meaning, when turned into target

language, reflects “negative taboo, with associated feelings of

revulsion and disgust” (Nida and Taber 91)xxx, the condition of

acceptability in translation will come into play. Regardless of

all the hardships of translation, a target text should possess

the property of acceptability. Stated otherwise, translations

have to possess the conditions of acceptability of the target

culture natural texts.

Sometimes connotation becomes the cornerstone of

translation. For instance, “in poetry it is often more

important to preserve the connotative meaning than to preserve

the denotative meaning” (Levy 8)xxxi. Every connotation hides a

high number of irregular elements in translation; the hardships

of the process of transferring meaning amounts as translators

go from simple meaning (denotative) to complex meaning

(connotative), as the amount of cultural and linguistic

elements which should be kept irregular amounts (Levy 8)xxxii. In

the limits to which it is possible, the translation of

connotation practices the difference between all the images of

a particular metaphor and trope.

14

Translation: as a Work of Art

The use of mental power, intuition, and some other

acquired skills in translation makes the work of translator

more similar to that of an artist. Ideally, translation is a

form of art. No translator or translation trainee can but

position himself emotionally, imaginatively, and creatively.

Certainly, it is this positioning, deeply immersed in his

spirit, which enables him to mix all the different tubes of

paint to arrive at the desired color. That is to approach

source text consciously to arrive at the most preferable

transmission of its meaning. Of course, the central element in

this process is the translator; he has to adopt himself to the

work of an author, performer, painter, etc. He should also

possess a clear concern to move away from a simple mediator

between languages and to turn instead to the larger issues of

scrupulous accuracy and inspiration.

What makes the burden of translation heavier for

translators is their great responsibility for preserving

meaning and transfer it objectively; they are restricted. As

soon as they embark on their work their minds get overwhelmed

by a “schism” (Bussnett and Trivedi 120)xxxiii. They have either

to follow the linguistic and cultural instructions of target

text or those of source text. Each of these choices does not

guarantee a perfect translation, but partially. To get out of

this situation, Skopos Theory, a theory which insists on the

purpose of translation, proposes that translations should be

shaped according to a particular purpose. That is to answer the

15

question: why does a translator translate/ for what purpose?

(Hatim 74) xxxiv. However, this can be seen as a call for

translators to neglect some factors in translation. For

example, they may align themselves with domestication or

foreignization. Following one of these two translation

methodologies which will be explained later means intervening

to some extent in translation. Otherwise statde:

“A translator is ‘an artist on oath’. He has a

double allegiance, indeed, several double

allegiances. All too familiar with the rigors and

pleasures of reading a text and those of making

another, caught between the need to express himself

and the need to represent another, moving between the

two halves of one brain, he has to use both to get

close to ‘the original’” (Ramanujan 276)xxxv.

One can assume that total self-neglect is impossible for

translators; their subjectivity is a determinant factor in

their work. This subjectivity may manifest itself in two forms:

manipulation, creativity. Though they are interrelated they are

not the same. Manipulating translations means guiding target

audience towards a particular idea which may not be the right

equivalent of source text ideas. This type of writing, guiding

readers, can be termed as translation managing.xxxvi It considers

translation as a “form of rewriting” (Hatim 62)xxxvii. This type

of subjectivity is deceptive; it aims at brainwashing. By

contrast, translator’s subjectivity, the one which is

aesthetically-oriented, is preferable, particularly if the aim

is innocent and not ideologically-driven. 16

This aesthetical subjectivity of translation requires a

rebirth of the soul of the author in the translator’s body.

When an author is writing a text, he is apparently talking

about thing, either places or events, but what he is basically

doing is articulating himself. However, when a translator

translates he does not articulate himselfxxxviii; he revitalizes

himself in another form. He forces himself to undergo a

reincarnation; he tries to adopt his flavor to that of the

author. This is because “translation issues from the original_

not so much from its life as from its afterlife”xxxix. In this

way translation seems as a process of resurrection in which the

translator becomes an actor. At least, if he wants to succeed

in giving a new life to his translation, he has to be an actor.

Therefore:

“the translator and the actor had to have the

same kind of talent. What they both do is to take

something of somebody else’s and put it over as if it

were their own” (Honig quoted in Venuti 1995)xl

In doing this the translator has to possess two essential

characteristics: the ability to perform “a technical stunt” and

a “psychological workout”xli.

“Anything which can be said in one language can

be said in another, unless the form is an essential

element of the message” (Nida and Taber 04)xlii

Ethics of Translation

17

There exists a natural truth that translation and language

are intensely linked; they meet in the contact zone of

communication. The issue that has much troubled translation

theorists and linguists is the distinction between the ethics

of language and the ethics of translation. The basis in ideas

for the ethics of translation exists in the various socio-

cultural restrictions of language, the mechanisms of cross-

cultural communication and in the divine power of languages.

Some translation theorists, most notoriously Henri Meschonnic,

have stressed the meticulous relationship between the ethics of

language and the ethics of translation. He states:

“An ethics of translating implies above all an

ethics of language. And an ethics of language implies

a theory of language as a whole, a critical theory in

the sense of Horkheimer’s approach, as opposed to

regional theories that form the current heterogeneous

categories of reason and academic

disciplines…”(Meschonnic 35)xliii

Everything in this quote goes to make me certain that

Meschonnic approach to translation and language is

comprehensive; he considers them as one umbrella-discipline. To

approach them, he supposes, a critical theory. There are two

outstanding senses of the term critical in the study of

language: firstly, it hides an apparent review of traditional

language theories. Of particular interest is the paramount

importance which is given to the impartial political analysis

of social contentions related to language. In other words,

critical theory regards language regulations as an underlying18

force which enhances social unfairness. Secondly, it contains

some instructive ideas which can guide societies to a

particular point of progress and equity. In this sense,

critical approach to language endeavors to appropriate the

flawed arguments of the traditional theories of language

(Ricento 42)xliv. “In its concern for social change and social

justice, Critical Language-Policy research highlights ethical

questions of policy, as well as of research methodology”

(Ricento 43)xlv. It also struggles to eradicate any ideology

which attempts to illustrate social inequalities as a normal

fact (Ricento 43)xlvi.

From the standpoint of Meschonnic, translation and

language can be considered as an indivisible whole; their use

fulfils the same purposes and their ethics should be based on

the same principles. Ethics of language, I claim, lay a form of

communication politics and ethics of translation do the same

thing. Hard talk about issues of sense and implication flourish

in the ethics of language as well as in those of translation.

Language possesses an unstoppable power of connotation and

meaning; it is capable of constructing particular identities,

building certain ways of thinking and shaping peoples’ ideology

(Ricento 97)xlvii.

Now the problem with the idea of critical theory is that

it belongs to the Frankfurt School of Literary Criticism; it is

based on the theory of ideology and exploitation. (Milner and

Browitt 70)xlviii Horkheimer, a brilliant leader of this school,

“helped to create Critical Theory through a mix of radical and

conservative lenses that stem from radical Marxism and end up19

in pessimistic Jewish transcendentalism”. One of his primary

concerns is to consider the subject of study from different

angles: political, economical and cultural. Analyses of these

elements, as Meschonnic and Horkheimer claim, can help us come

up with illuminating results.

Looking at the ethics of language and the ethics of

translation from a cultural, political and economical

standpoint seems to be convincing. Of particular interest is

the fact that most of “the scandals of translation are

cultural, economic, and political” (Venuti 01)xlix. This idea

shows two realities: one is that research in translation

exceeds the linguistic-oriented approaches. Another one is that

it is unlikely to avoid social values in translation; it is a

pious hope. Stated otherwise, scientific approaches to

translation have demonstrated their truncation; they have

failed to consider the role of social values in the process of

making, deciphering and translating texts. To be more precise,

the process of rectifying or creating new social values should

be considered in translation research (Venuti 02)l.

These critiques, the ones received by the scientific

approaches to translation, are likely to be described as

reasonable when we observe them from the perspective of

Critical Theory. Totality, a notion which was highly emphasized

by Lukas, is the cornerstone in the formation of the ethics of

translation, both in their relation to language and to humans

(Milner and Browitt 71)li. This totality helps us to understand

who we are and what we must do if we are to aspire to be

professional translators, not servants of ideological or20

political agendas. It is this idea upon which the ethics of

translation should be built. The conquest of a text, which

mostly means the taking it away to those who have a different

culture and different social values, is not an innocent task

when you go into its tiny details. All that is said reflects

one essential idea: “the greatest hindrances to translation…

exist outside the discipline itself” (Venuti 02)lii. However, if

we divorce translation from linguistics, we may end up speaking

piously of our fondness for complete ethics of translation. As

soon as we divorce translation from linguistics we stop

thinking language in translation; this is impossible as

Meschonnic has pointed above.

Antoine Berman, a French translator and translation

theorist, analyzes translation in different articles, most

notably his book “The Experiencing of the Foreigner: Culture

and Translation in Romantic Germany”. In this book he talked

mainly about the ethics of translation and their usefulness in

translation. Another important piece of work of Berman is an

article entitled “Translation and its Discourses”. In this

article, he introduced the concept of ‘traductology’ to counter

what was called the ‘science of translation’.

He defines traductology as “la réflexion de la traduction

sur elle-même a partir de sa nature d’expérience” (Berman

675)liii. In this definition, he stresses two concepts: the

first one is experience. He considers the nature of translation

as an act of experience. Translators do all their bests to

overcome contradictions, either those which come out of the

discrepancies between languages or those which reflect cultural21

differences, if not cultural contentions. In this context,

Berman talks about three dimensions of experience: the

experience of dissimilarity and affinity of codes, the paradox

of what is translatable and what is untranslatable, and “the

opposing possibilities of the restitution of meaning and the

reinstatement of letter” (Berman 676)liv. Berman goes on to

remind us that the concept of experience belongs to philosophy;

he says “la réflexion n’est rien d’autre qu’un tel

retournement, qui s’effectue dans le medium de la langue

naturelle. Telle est la structure speculative qu’interroge la

philosophie” (Berman 675-6)lv.

Conclusion:

If one tries to assess the importance of context in

translation he has first to measure the quality of words or

utterances in their situation. To consider utterances in their

proper situation is to assign them a special meaning which may

be different from that which has been offered in dictionaries.

Because of this shift in the meaning of utterances translators

should pay considerable attention to all the above mentioned

contexts. When translators neglect translation context they run

against the risk of violating translation norms. To avoid this

violation linguistics has provided the concept of

‘intertextuality’ (Situationality, Acceptability, Readability,

Respectability…) and literary studies have introduced socio-

cultural specificities of nations and peoples.

To translate is to respect ethics and follow their

restrictions towards the arena of art. When translators don’t

22

violate ethics of translation they seek to become artists in

the sense that they try to render all source text meaning in

target text, but without causing any harm. This perseverance

turns the work of the translator into an artist: you have a

task to do but through a circuitous road. Being on this road it

is compulsory to pay considerable attention to the traffic

lights, cultural specificities and linguistic shifts. At the

same time the stimuli of creativity should be high and limited;

any attempt to over-create may lead to the total degeneration

of source text meaning.

In this way the idea of translation as a message in a

context originated. Although its importance may be destined to

fall on deaf ears, perhaps professional translators will seize

the baton. Those who translate texts other than technical ones

will certainly feel the importance of context in translation.

23

i - Hatim, Basil and Munday, Jeremy. Translation : and Advanced Source Book. London and New York, Routledge: 2004. Print.ii- Oxford Dictionaries. www.oxforddictionaries.com. Oxford University Press, 2013. 04th Oct, 2013.iii - Nida, A. Eugene. Contexts in Translating. Amesterdam and Pheladelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company: 2011. Print.iv - Hatim, Basil. Teaching and Researching Translation. England, Longman: 2001. Print.v - Ibid.vi - Bennett, Tony. Formalism and Marxism. London and New York, Routledge: 1979. Print.vii - Venuti, Lawrence. The Translation Studies Reader.London and New York, Routledge: 2000. Print.viii - Nida, A. Eugene and Taber, R. Charles. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden, Brill, 1982. Print.ix - de Beaugrande, A. Robert. A New Introduction to the Study of Text and Discourse: Discursivism and Ecologism. Published for Use in the Internet: 2004. www.beaugrande.com . 04 Oct 2013.x - Bassnett, Susan  and Lefevere, André. Constructing Cultres: Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters: 1998. Print.xi - Baker, Mona. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: 2001. Print.

xii - Milner, Andrew and Browitt, Jeff. Contemporary Cultural Theory: an Introduction. 3rd ed. London and New York, Routledge: 2002. Print.xiii - Scott, S. Wilsur. Five Approaches to Literary Criticis: an Arrangement of Contemporary Critical Essays. New York and London, Collier Books and Collier Macmillan Publishers: 1962. Print.xiv - Hatim, Basil and Munday, Jeremy. Translation : and Advanced Source Book. London and New York, Routledge: 2004. Print.xv - Ibid. xvi - Neubert, Albrecht and Shreve, M. Gregory. Translation as Text. Kent, Ohio, London and England, The Kent State University Press: 1992. Print.xvii - Beedy, Allison and Rodriguez Inés, Patricia and Sandez-Gijion, Pilar. Corpus Use and Translation: Corpus Use for Learning to Translate and Learning Corpus Use to Translate. Amesterdam and Pheladelphia, John Benjamin’s PublishingConpany: 2009. Print.xviii - Hatim, Basil and Munday, Jemery. Translation: an Advanced Resource Book. London and New York, Routledge: 2004. Print.xix -Ibidxx -Ibidxxi - Nida,A. Eugene and Taber, R. Charles. The Theory and Practice of Translation. United Bibles Societies, Brill and Lieden: 1982. Print.xxii-Ibid xxiii - Ibidxxiv - Ibidxxv - Ibidxxvi- Derrida, Jacques. Writing and Difference. Trans. Alan Bass. London and New York, Routledge: 1967. Print. xxvii - Nida,A. Eugene and Taber, R. Charles. The Theory and Practice of Translation. United Bibles Societies, Brill and Lieden: 1982. Print.xxviii- Nida,A. Eugene and Taber, R. Charles. The Theory and Practice of Translation. United Bibles Societies, Brill and Lieden: 1982. Print.

xxix- Ibid xxx - Ibidxxxi- Levy, Jiri. The Art of Translation. Trans. Patrick Corness. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company: 2011. Print.xxxii - Bassnett, Susan and Trivedi, Harish. Post-Colonial Translation: Theory andPractice. London and New York, Routledge: 2002. Print.xxxiii- Hatim, Basil. Teaching and Researching Translation. England, Longman: 2001. Print.xxxiv- Ramanujan, K. Attipate. Poems of love and War: From the Eight Anthologies and the Ten Long Poems of Classical Tamil. Trans. Attipate Krishnaswami Ramanujan.New York, Columbia University Press: 1985. Printxxxv - Ramanujan, K. Attipate. Poems of love and War: From the Eight Anthologies and the Ten Long Poems of Classical Tamil. Trans. Attipate Krishnaswami Ramanujan.New York, Columbia University Press: 1985. Printxxxvi - http://www.beaugrande.com/TEXTPRODFOURPart1.htm. 26th Oct., 2013.xxxvii - Hatim, Basil. Teaching and Researching Translation. England, Longman: 2001. Print.xxxviii Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator’s Invisibility: a History of Translation. London and New York, Routledge: 1995. Printxxxix Benjamin, Walter. The task of the Translator. Trans. Harry Zohn. In Venuti, Lawrence. The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York, Routledge: 2000. Print.xl - Ibidxli - Ibidxlii - Nida,A. Eugene and Taber, R. Charles. The Theory and Practice of Translation. United Bibles Societies, Brill and Lieden: 1982. Print.xliii

xliv - de Beaugrande, A. Robert. A New Introduction to the Study of Text and Discourse: Discursivism and Ecologism. Published for Use in the Internet: 2004. www.beaugrande.com . 04 Oct 2013.xlv - Ibidxlvi - Ibidxlvii

xlviii - Ramanujan, K. Attipate. Poems of love and War: From the Eight Anthologiesand the Ten Long Poems of Classical Tamil. Trans. Attipate Krishnaswami Ramanujan.New York, Columbia University Press: 1985. Printxlix - Ibidl - Ibidli

lii

liii - Nida,A. Eugene and Taber, R. Charles. The Theory and Practice of Translation. United Bibles Societies,liv - ibidlv - Levy, Jiri. The Art of Translation. Trans. Patrick Corness. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company: 2011. Print.