últimas corrientes teóricas en los estudios de traducción - Gredos ...

MARÍA T. SÁNCHEZ–LINGUISTICS AND TRANSLATION: A LOVE-HATE RELATIONSHIP?
of a particular language or languages for its/their sake. The theory of translation is essentially a
theory of applied linguistics (Catford 1965: 19),
and he had already referred to the inevitability of having to explain translation
starting from General Linguistics:
Since translation has to do with language, the analysis and description of translationprocesses
must make considerable use of categories set up for the description of languages. It
must, in other words, draw upon a theory of language – a general linguistic theory. (Ibid 1965:
vii)
This linguistic-oriented approach to translation was not accepted by all scholars
for many of them regarded the act of translation as an art. They denied the fact that
translation should be wholly conditioned by a linguistic approach as there are other
approaches from which the discipline is more adequately defined. Amongst those who
thought along these lines, we find Edmond Cary who pointed out that when considering
translation in all its complexity, it is impossible to base all aspects from which the
discipline can be defined on a linguistic analysis only, as according to him translation is an
operation sui generis (Mounin 1963: 14). He did not deny the role that Linguistics has
within Translation but, in comparison to Fedorov and other linguists, he minimized the
importance of Linguistics within the translation process.
In more recent years, the disagreement in the approach given to translation by
linguists and by translators has increased. There are scholars who, in spite of the linguistic
expansion into other fields, do not accept the important role that Linguistics is supposed
to play in Translation. We find, amongst others, the French specialist Marianne Lederer
who claims that linguistics and translation should go their own separate ways and tries “to
bring out the reasons why translation must be dealt with on a level other than the
linguistic” (Lederer 1994: 87).
Other scholars do not go to such an extent in their statements, although they do
try to highlight, in very plain language, what they feel about the influence of Linguistics
on translation. Maurice Pergnier states that:
even though linguistics has developed in ways that make it much more relevant to
the concerns of translation, there are still those who would like to liberate translation
completely from its sway (1993: 9).
Depending on the focus that one gives to these two disciplines, each can be seen
as having its own limitations. Translation, for example, can be seen as a limited discipline
when considered as a linguistic activity only. On the other hand, this limitation can also
be applied to Linguistics when considered as a fixed device providing ready-made
solutions to specific translation problems. But, whatever one’s angle of vision, it is
difficult to deny that Linguistics does have something to contribute to Translation Studies
in a number of ways in which the two disciplines very clearly interact. According to Mona
Baker:
Linguistics is a discipline which studies language both in its own right and as a tool
for generating meanings. It should therefore have a great deal to offer to the budding
discipline of translation studies; it can certainly offer translators valuable insights into the
nature and function of language. This is particularly true of modern linguistics, which no
longer restricts itself to the study of language per se but embraces such sub-disciplines as
textlinguistics […] and pragmatics […] (Baker 1992: 4/5)
Peter Fawcett in his book Translation and Language defines the relationship of
linguistics to translation as follows:
735