Translation Vs Free Translation

1. Introduction

Despite all recent developments in the field of translation studies, the academic discussions are still centred on a very important issue that has dominated translation activity since antiquity, namely: literal translation versus free translation. These opposing translation approaches are actually based on the issue of the relationship between the source text and its translation and how they should correspond to each other. The academic debate on this issue has preoccupied the translation scholars for a long time and still represents a vivid topic in the translation studies. This fact is confirmed by Bassnett (1988, p. 39) who indicates that the debate about word-for-word and sense-for-sense translation, which started by the

The discussion originates from the perspective that some translation scholars favor a translation method that is source language–oriented as they believe that the target text should be a reflection of the original text and therefore should be faithful to the words of the original (literal translation). Meanwhile, there is another group of translation theorists who represent a different view in this respect and think that translation should be freed from the source language and move toward the target language and its culture. They call for more freedom in translation (free translation). These two views keep emerging from time to time in the academic arena under new names and terms, but they virtually refer to the same old issue; literal or free translation. There are increasing indications that the translation is still far from getting rid of the old dichotomy of literal versus free translation as confirmed by Munday (2012, p. 30) who sees that the field of translation studies has been dominated and absorbed by the debate of literalism, paraphrase, and imitation. Therefore, this paper will be dedicated to exploring the concept of literal translation in translation studies in a bid to demonstrate that it is still dominating the modern theories of

24) believes that a literal translation can be close to the original but not sound grammatically. His views are based on the fact that there is no a unified definition of literal translation among translation scholars and most of them define it vaguely by associating it with word-for-word translation and referring to it as lacking in grammaticality; in the sense that literal translations tends to produce ungrammatical texts (Catford, 1965, p. 25). On the other hand, there are other translation scholars who find literal translation grammatically sound, and acceptable. Hence, they classify literal translation as a translation strategy and advise translators to adapt it as their primary translation method. In other words, the translator should keep applying the literal translation strategy as far as it produces an appropriate text in the target language, but if it fails to satisfy that end, the translator can then resort to other translation strategies and techniques (Vinay and Darbelnet, 1958). Newmark (1988b) emphasizes the omnipresence of literal translation. He asserts that literal translation is common and cannot be avoided as it constitutes an integral part of the translation process and the first translation strategy that translators opt for when they translate. Moreover, he argues that all translation problems start to occur when the translator cannot apply the strategy of literal