Theory of Translation 1 Introduction

2.6 Translation: Its Definition 
The nature of translation could be explained by defining it properly. However, with 
regard to defining translation, researchers have a problem. Like poetry, formulating an 
exact definition or meaning of translation is next to impossible. This is largely due to 
the complexities involved in the act. I. A. Richards rightly puts that translation “may 
very probably be the most complex type of event yet produced in the evolution of the 
cosmos” (qtd. in Gentzler, 14). Translation is more than rendition or a reformulation 
of the text in source language into a target language. It is a mode of communication, 
not just a derived or secondary communication. It is not just a replica of the source 
language message; it is rather a creative process by which a writer’s vision is 
communicated from one speech community to another. 
In Dr. Johnson’s opinion, translation aims at “change into another language, retaining 
the sense” (qtd. in Das Bijaykumar, 9). Obviously, it is true that retaining the ‘sense’ 
must be the purpose of any translation. A. H. Smith reiterates the fact with some 
modification when he states: “To translate is to change into another language 
retaining as mush the sense as one can” (qtd. in Das Bijaykumar, 9). In this definition, 
the phrase, ‘as much the sense’ indicates the challenge in the task of the translator. 
The ‘sense’ is an inclusive term that includes the exact meaning, cultural context, 
associations of the word and many more things.
Translation is a process of finding expressions in another language, thereby 
preserving the semantic and stylistic equivalence, matching grammatical structures 

---

36 
and cultural contexts. Following the line of Catford, Meethan and Hudson describe 
the process of translation in the following way: 
Translation is the replacement of a representation of a text in one language by a 
representation of an equivalent text in a second language. Texts in different 
languages can be equivalent in different degrees (fully or partially equivalent) 
in respect of different levels of representation (context, semantics, grammar, 
lexis, etc.) and at different ranks (word-for-word, phrase-for-phrase, sentence-
for-sentence) (qtd. in Al Zoubi, 68).
Eugene A. Nida defines translation to be a process, “in which a person who knows 
both the source and the receptor language, decodes the message of the source 
language and encodes it into an appropriate form in the receptor language” (Science, 
88). Nida emphasizes the process of decoding-re-encoding and the capability of the 
translator. In translation, it is necessary to create “the closest natural equivalent of the 
source language message firstly in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style” 
(88). Thus, in addition to semantic equivalence, stylistic equivalence is equally 
needed. J. C. Catford explains translation as a unidirectional process: from source 
language (SL) to target language (TL). He defines translation as “the replacement of 
textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another 
language (TL) … The central problem of translation practice is that of finding TL 
translation equivalent” (qtd. in Das Bijaykumar, 31).