Microsoft Word Revised Syllabus Ver doc

Contributions in the Twentieth Century 
Man’s perception of the communication model and the communicative process began 
to undergo a radical transformation as the twentieth century unfolded. The concept of 
language structures attracted the attention of scholars. They began to feel that languages were 
to be looked at on the basis of their individual identities and structures, rather than following 
the Greek and Latin models. Ferdinand de Saussure (1916), in the dawn of this century, gave 
a lead in this direction. His fundamental notions of linguistic structures made a big impact on 
language description and grammar writing. They transformed the entire concept of 
communication models and the function of language in relation to the users of the language. 
These led to the explorations of new dimensions of semantic structures and the interaction 
among those who used the language. Anthropologists like Malinowski (1923) and others 
gave a new direction to the function of language –language in action – in relation to the 
society which used it. They worked on the differences in kinship relationship between 
languages and other variations of their usage. The cumulative effect of all these scholars 
created a congenial atmosphere for the linguists and translators to surge ahead in a new 
direction.
Amidst all these, the biggest ever solid contribution in the field of translation theory 
came from Eugene A. Nida He was engaged in translating the Bible. His vast knowledge of 
many languages and intense interest in using all available resources and knowledge in the 
field of language function and society gave him the much needed push to probe deep into the 
intricacies of the process of translating. Way back in 1947 he published a comprehensive 
book Bible Translating: An Analysis of Principles and Procedures explaining all the likely 
problems which one may confront while translating. He again wrote an article in 1952 
entitled ‘A New Methodology in Biblical Exegesis’. Nida underlined in the above article the 
need for back-transformation of complex surface structures to an underlying level. It was 
essentially a deep structure approach to kernel sentences and transforming them as surface 
structures. He felt that there was more universal uniqueness between languages at the kernel 
level and it this could be harnessed for transferring the message from SL to TL, it could serve 
better. Whenever there was a major hurdle in translating from the complex surface structure 
of SL of TL, he felt that the complex structure could be reduced to the kernel level which 
could make translation simple and unambiguous. 
It is of academic interest to note that Chomsky brought out his theory of 
transformational grammar much later to this, i.e. in 1955 as against Nida’s findings of the 
same several years back. Nida’s theories on translation, viz. literary theory, linguistic theory, 
sociolinguistic theory and ethno linguistic approach are noteworthy (cf. Chapter on Theories). 
His three phase translation model: text analysis, transfer, and restructuring is also an 

---

28 
important milestone. He has raised high above all others by providing definite theoretical 
propositions on translating any type of literature. 
Fang (1959) treats translation from three angles, viz, adequate comprehension of the 
translated text, adequate manipulation of the translated text and that which happens between 
these two. This is more or less similar to the three phase translation model propounded by 
Nida. Jacobson (1958) treats translation under three categories of intralingual translation (or 
rewarding), interlingual translation (or translation (or translation proper) and intersemiotic 
translation (or transmutation). Seleskovitch (1976) works on the theory of interpretation, the 
art of translating the oral message simultaneously. 
As a culmination of all the above, Holmes (1970) has made a find classification of the 
entire realm of translation studies into pure and applied translation studies. The former is 
subdivided into theoretical and descriptive categories. Under theoretical he treats general 
theories and partial theories. He subdivides the descriptive category as product oriented, 
process oriented, and function oriented. On the applied side he treats other aspects such as 
translator training, translation aids and translation criticism.