Theory of Translation 1 Introduction

2.9 Historical Development of Translation Theory 
As the present research involves the close textual analysis of the acts of translation, a 
review and discussion of major theoretical issues concerning translation is necessary. 
Moreover, introduction to any discipline could not be complete without a historical 
perspective. Though it is difficult to cover the scope of translation studies in brief, 
basic lines of approach in western culture are considered. 

---

45 
Although translation is an ancient activity, its systematic study evolved into an 
academic discipline only in the second half of the twentieth century. The name 
‘Translation Studies’ was first proposed by James S. Holmes in 1972 (Munday, 
Issues, 5). In this regard, Edwin Gentzler reports that ‘Translation Theory’, in its 
logically disciplined sense, appeared “only since 1983 as a separate entry in the 
Modern Language Association International Bibliography” ( 1). The translation 
theories earlier in the twentieth century are termed as “pre-linguistic” (Newmark, 
Linguistic Stages, 21) by scholars because the twentieth century is marked by various 
developments in linguistics. Especially, the last 40-50 years have been significant in 
the theorization of ‘translaation studies’. Translation scholars across the world have 
taken efforts to comprehend the process of translation and its proper theorization. 
Insights from various disciplines like linguistics, structuralism, semiotics and cultural 
studies have been incorporated by scholars for the growth and development of this 
discipline. 
The history of translation studies in the west dates back almost 2000 years ago. The 
initial translation theory is spurred on the Roman translations and later on the 
translations of the Bible. The Romans translated the popular Greek texts profoundly. 
The first translation theorists were Cicero and Horace who opposed word-to-word 
translation as it results in clumsiness. Since the Roman days, scholars have been 
debating over the issue of ‘sense-for-sense’ and ‘word-for-word’ translation. The 
earliest and most systematic recorded views regarding translation are from Cicero 
(55AD). He wrote on the translator’s dilemma, in deciding whether to go for word-to-
word or sense-for-sense translation. The translation with earlier method “will sound 
uncouth”. Further, he explains, “if compelled by necessity I alter anything in the order 
of wording, I shall seem to have departed from the function of a translator” (qtd. in 
Das Bijaykumar, 5). 
The first translation of the complete Bible into English was the Wycliffe Bible 
produced between 1380-1384, informs Bassnett (Studies, 53). Since then, Bible 
translation remained a significant issue. In the sixteenth century, the invention of 
printing gave Bible translation a new impetus. The Holy Bible was translated into a 
large number of European languages despite the normative standards of the church. 
New versions of Bible poured in by translators with corrections, amendments and 

---

46 
revisions. This was undoubtedly a further step in the development of translation. 
Martin Luther and Erasmus were the famous Bible translators of this age. 
The renaissance period is marked by significance of translation. The translation of 
Petrarch by Wyatt and Surrey became famous in this period, as their translation was 
creative and read like the contemporary poems. The major translation theorist in this 
age is In the preface to his translation of Ovid’s 
Epistles
(1680), John Dryden 
classified translation into three types: “Metaphrase’ or word-to-word translation, 
‘paraphrase’ or sense by sense translation and ‘imitation’, where the translator can 
take freedom beyond limits” (qtd. in Lefevere, 102). Dryden preferred ‘paraphrase’ or 
‘sense-to-sense’ translation to ‘metaphrase’. Alexander Pope, a well-known satirist 
and poet of the seventeenth century, also supported ‘sense-to-sense’ translation. 
Alexander Fraser Tytler is another significant translation theorist in the eighteenth 
century. In his ‘
Essay on the Principles of Translation
’ (1797), he formulated three 
rules or laws for the translators which ask for “a complete transcript of the ideas of the 
original work”, “the same style and manner as the original” and “the ease of the 
original composition” (qtd. in Munday, Theories, 26-7). 
The romantics stressed the importance of ‘imagination’ by refusing the rationalism of 
the earlier age. Coleridge, in his 
Biographia Literaria 
(1817), clearly distinguished 
between ‘fancy’ and ‘imagination’ and emphasized the importance of imagination in 
the creation of poetry. Consequently, translation was also looked upon as a creative 
activity in terms of imagination.
The nineteenth century witnessed a variety of attitudes towards translation. P. B. 
Shelley commented that “The plant must spring again from its seed, or it will bear no 
flower and this is the burthen the curse of Babel” (qtd. in Gargesh, 82). Matthew 
Arnold stated that the bilingual scholars can only judge translations (qtd. in Lefevere, 
69). Fitzgerald in his 
Rubaiayat of Omar Khayyam
lays much emphasis on creativity. 
He states that “a live sparrow was better than a stuffed eagle” (qtd. in Bassnett, 
Studies, 76). 
In the twentieth century, the theories put forth by scholars like J. C. Catford, Eugene 
Nida, Gideon Toury, Anton Popovic, Peter Newmark, Larson Malon, Vinay and 
Darbelnet and many others have contributed to the translation theory with divergent 

---

47 
viewpoints. Some of these theories are influenced by cultural anthropology, 
psycholinguistics, epistemology, semiotics, sociolinguistics, etc.
In the 1980s and the 90s, the translation studies began to establish its identity as an 
independent academic discipline. James S. Holmes clearly classified the theory and its 
application part. Translation theory, in this period, started to move away from 
descriptive standards to cultural interpretations. Snell-Hornby considers this as 
“cultural turn” (Munday, Theories, 10) in translation studies that makes a significant 
change in the way we look at translation. Bartoloni states that the shift in theoretical 
perspectives and tools can be observed as “key methodological terms such as 
‘equivalence’ and ‘transparency’ have been readily replaced by ‘difference’ and 
‘resistance’” (Bartoloni, 6, emphasis in original). 
In the contemporary age, the boundaries of translation studies are being expanded due 
to various developments in linguistics and other sciences like anthropology, sociology 
and literary studies. In addition, the recent developments like revolution in 
communication system, spreading of internet, development of English as a global 
language and increasing globalization have also contributed to change the attitude and 
approach towards translation. Consequently, ‘Translation Studies’ has now become a 
serious academic discipline and scholars across the globe are contributing for its 
development.