The Problem Of Equivalence In Language Process
Translation is the process that renders knowledge, whether literary or scientific, a mobile nature of culture. Such mobility, in turn, is what gives human understanding a deep and lasting influence beyond the boundaries of its primary setting. Discussions related to the theory, practice, and history of translation have tended to focus on literary and holy texts. Yet translation services have been a central determinant in the history of scientific knowledge as well, therefore ultimate share in its intellectual history, and goes on to be so today.
Despite such importance, science and medical translation has been a topic of only sporadic scholarly study. The so-named “invisibility” of the literary translator, whose labor and worth tend to be ignored in favor of the original writer, doubly applies to the scientific translator, who has been neglected even by the sphere of language studies, with a few important exclusions. Such exceptions for example, regarding the transmission of ancient Greek and medieval Islamic knowledge reveal an interesting truth: no less than with literary works, translators of science and medicine have often imposed new elements upon the texts they have rendered, enriching and expanding them by adaptation to new traditional contexts. Just as the world has benefited greatly from the translation of scientific and medical knowledge into variety of languages, so has this knowledge been improved by translation in turn.
As translation theory evolved, however, the consensus view expanded to include cultural, interpretive, interpersonal, cognitive, and even technical factors as well. With the advent of the functionalist approach in translation theory, the function or purpose of translated texts as communicative tools moved into the spot of attention, where it remains presently.
Although this opinion lacks space to even outline the great number of factors that have been investigated until now, it is fair to stress that translation studies as a spot has moved radically in the direction of embracing an integrative approach to translation that sees itself as a cross-subject with virtually no aspect of the communicative process being outside its scope of reference. Perhaps one of the most overriding changes in lingvo theory has been from the static to the dynamic: from seeing the translation process as one of establishing equivalence between original and translated texts to seeing it instead as one of cognitive, social, and communicative action. Results of think-aloud studies on the mental processes involved in translation, stopping first on the interplay between intuitions and strategies, suggest that mental process research can be a good source of knowledge about how experts and novices translate differently.
Such research may well make necessary contributions to translation pedagogy in the future, for example in specifying a role for strategy and creativity exercises.
Partly as a result of the equivalence-to-action shift in translation theory, there is an ever-increasing awareness that translation experts must be actively engaged in the development of individually found skills for dealing with the endless number unforeseeable combinations of factors that they will definitely face in their professional work. Language like the space cannot be ever measured!