A Semiotic Approach to the Theory of Translation: - Bruno Osimo ...

Units of natural
0 0 0
metalanguage →
(or artificial intermediate
language of T M )
. . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
Units of L N → X X X Y Y Y ← Units of
L N ’
Figure 3
NOTES
1. One way to write history is to slice the flux of happenings
into periods. We may divide the history of the theory of
translation into the following periods. Each advance was
brought about by an extension of the kinds of text (genres)
that had to be translated.
a) Literal translation: 1000 B.C. to Middle Ages. Religious
texts, considered sacred. The effect was word-for-word.
(“When I translate the Greeks, except for the Scriptures,
in which even the order of the words holds a mystery, I do
not translate word for word.” – St. Jerome [emphasis
added].) Such translations were difficult to understand,
but it was assumed they would be interpreted by priests.
b) Translation of meaning with little consideration for form.
Commercial and legal texts. Often attributed to Cicero,
who spoke of not rendering the words themselves but
rather their “weight,” i.e., the ‘signifieds’ not the
‘signifiers’. But in neglecting form, this kind of
translation also ignored the functions of the form.
41