Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository

how to do it, whereas for translation the 'what' iser soon becomes / the
'how', with competence turned into performance quite openly and
easily." It is generally upheld that a sound theory for translation
does not exclusively address itself to the thesis nor question the
antithesis but should involve an integrated synthesis of all factors
pertaining to the whole issue. In order to be able to make qualitative
statements about a translated text, one must fully be acquainted with
translation theory, bearing in mind that both theory and practice we
complementary. Translation quality assessment should, however, be
based on a sound model. Such a model should, in turn, evolve from a
sound theory which comprehends the philosophical, communicative and
semiotic components of the process.
1. THE PHILOSOPHICAL COMPONENT
For centuries, translators were torn between two interconflicting
extremes: should they translate word for word, or sense for sense? In
my opinion, the problem lies with the translation critic much more than
with the translation theorist or the translation practitioner. Should
we focus, in our assessment of translation quality, on verbal accuracy
and linguistic fidelity and bypass, or rather turn a blind eye on, the
totalitarian effect of the translation upon its immediate readership?
Should we concentrate on the translator's craftsmanship, that is, his
maneuverability in handling the source text, and sacrifice the target
text's identity to the original? Is the process of translation,
intrinsically, a purely imitative, subjective, or objective
enterprise? And in what perspective should we place our model for
2