Gulistan State University Foreign language and literature English Naxaloboyeva Matluba Contents Introduction

2.2. Distinguishing translationfeatures highlighted in the translation of Old Man and the Sea.
The concept of translation has varied over the centuries. This is because the discipline itself is a variable that, despite being conditioned by an infinite number of socio-economic, cultural and ideological factors that are constantly changing, it is an indispensable tool that has accompanied the human being throughout history. It is, therefore, "a 'serious matter' (Eco in Vidal, 2009, p. 53) that involves all areas of human life" (Vidal, 2009, p. 53). As mentioned before, understanding nowadays’ translation paradigm and all its methods, techniques and procedures, requires firstly understanding the current practice of translation as the result of a historical process where the discipline has been approached from many different ways and perspectives. The history of translation can be said to begin with the classics (Cicero, St. Jerome, etc.) and goes hand in hand with the evolution of humanity. However, we cannot speak of theoretical translation until the 20th century. The modern study of translation began in the 1960s, when Catford initiated the prescriptivist school (or prescriptivism). Catford defined the translation as "the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another (TL)" (Catford, 1965, p. 20). In this way, Catford advocated the concept of absolute equivalence, a perspective that addressed translation as an exact science where different linguistic systems were encoded and decoded. Thus, the translator would only be concerned with finding pairs of terms of equal meaning in the source and target languages: "A central task of translation theory is that of defining the nature and conditions of translation equivalents" (Catford, 1965, p. 21), that is, a synonymic translation. However, the limitations of this approach relied on the difficulty to transmit the original text’s ideas by only focusing in the meaning of the words as isolated agents, and to convey its full linguistic nuances at the same time; this was something that Catford did not envisage. In 1972, James Holmes went a step further with regard to Catford's theories and inaugurated descriptivism with the publication of The Name and Nature of Translation Studies. In this article, Holmes incorporates new elements that condition and intervene in the translation process: the author, the receiver, the editor, etc. He then founded the Netherlands school and carried out further research associated with translation studies, parallel to the one envisaged by the Tel-Aviv school, which was created by Even-Zohar. One of the most remarkable exponents belonging to this latter school was Gideon Toury, who developed a new definition of translation:
...the initial question is not whether a certain text is a translation (according to some preconceived criteria which are extrinsic to the system under study), but whether it is regarded as a translation from the intrinsic point of view of the target literary polysystem, i.e. according to its position within the polysystem.
(Toury, 1980, p. 43).
This led to an entire revolution since Toury introduced a new agent into the translation process: culture. Now, the search for the absolute terminology was left aside, and prescriptivism made way for descriptivism. From that moment on, translation was no longer considered a strictly technical process and became a discipline that began to take the human factor into account. Now it was not just what was said that mattered, but rather how it was said. In this way, the the recipients' sensitivity in the target culture began to be taken into account. This was the idea that the Belgian Theo Hermans put forward: "Translating aspects of one culture into another is never a simple semantic substitution. Rather, the self-images of two cultures come to bear on the matter and clash over it". Until these ideas came into stage, the target culture was considered –as much–as a secondary aspect. Nonetheless, Hermans put the main focus on it and turned it into the reference wherefrom to tackle the translation of the original ideas into the target language. In his work The Manipulation of Literature, he coined the following definition of translation: "From the point of view of the target literature, all translation implies a degree of manipulation of the source text for a certain purpose" (Hermans, 1985, p. 11). It is tempting to refer to these words as a source of ambiguity. Therefore, it should be made clear that Hermans at no point claims that the translator has absolute freedom to alter the text. Otherwise, he admits inaccuracy to take part in the very same translation process. Hermans calls this phenomenon manipulation. In the 1990s, a large number of theories on translation emerged. One of them is that of Lawrence Venuti, who first described the translator as an unacknowledged agent whose performance was a key factor in the result of a practice that favoured the strong culture over the weak one (Venuti, 1992, p. 121). However, many other authors disagree with this definition because they do not believe in the invisibility of the translator (Sáenz, 1998, p. 1), but they see him "as a critical and creative voice in turn" (Camps, 2008, p. 54). In that way, the translator is considered as one more agent in the creative process: his decisions matter, since they have a direct impact on the reception of the translated text in the target culture. So, the translator goes from being a mere linguistic elaborator to becoming an intercultural mediator. Such was the idea that was shared by André Lefevere, who published Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame in 1992. In the latter book, the author goes a step further and introduces the idea of translation as a rewriting, which means that the translated text is now seen as an improvement on the original one, as a result of the combination of subtle –but determinant– factors that influence the translator when writing. These may be nuances that affect the translator internally, such as the ideology; and externally, such as the culture –which the translator shall, however, take into account–. In any case, translators and their works are a reflection of the world where we live (Lefevere, 1992, p. vii). Therefore, the conclusion of Lefevere's work (1992) can be summarised as follows: if speaking is not neutral, translating is not neutral either. After reviewing some of the most important theories in translation studies, it is worthwhile commenting on the role that translation decisions play during the translation process and their influence on the target text. In particular, in literature, as this is the subject whereon we will later put the focus. The literary tradition is not usually manifested in the pages of the book as such (explicitly). However, this is something that the translator must be aware of when interpreting the text. In that way, this tradition will not only help him to understand the evolution of a culture's vision of reality, but also the language used. That is why a proficient knowledge of the target language is conditio sine qua non for appropriately representing the evolution of the translated work literary background and tradition. I refer back to what I said above and recall that, precisely because of the inevitability of manipulation, the translated work disappears and becomes a new original. To this regard, the variety of translations that can be obtained from an original is almost limitless. Or not. This was what the formalist and structuralist literary schools claimed, as they believed in the existence of a unique system for producing literature that took into account a series of static factors that conditioned writing. The translation of a novel into a foreign language requires considering a whole set of aspects that will condition the final form of the target text. One of the linguistic features, which is also linked with the reception of the novel in the target culture, is the literary stylistics of the texts. Its study and, thus, its correct reproduction on the target language, has the aim of gaining some insight into the writer’s art (Leech and Short, 1981, p. 13), both on the part of the translator and on the reader. That is why understanding the real reasons that led the translator taking, or not, one, or another (lexical) choice in the discourse would be merely speculative. For this reason, in the following lines, the focus will be put on the analysis of the different options (or translation strategies) that a translator can take when reproducing a text into a foreign language. After those being identified, these will be contrasted to the decision-making processes of each translator of The Old Man and the Sea in the sections below. It is worthwhile referring to the translation strategies as something more complex than a mere set of options that a translator can take in one, or another situation. Nevertheless, the translator is the one who decides what strategy to use for solving each translation problem; thus, limiting the strategies to a given translation problem would be setting boundaries to what should be addressed as a descriptive perspective rather than a prescriptive one. Most of the literature that has been written on the topic of translation strategies associates one, or more, translation strategies with a given translation problem. In order to respect such methodological decision, in the following lines, we will offer a review of some of the most common translation strategies that, if usually embedded in a certain translational situation, can also be applied to other translation problems, such as the translation of foreign words. The identification of such strategies in the translation of foreign names in the translated versions of The Old Man and the Sea shall be, however, discussed in the following sections.