Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T12:31:41.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Science of Translation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Eugene A. Nida
Eugene A. Nida*
Affiliation:
American Bible Society
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Developments in linguistic theory have shed important light upon the theory and practice of translation, resulting in the recognition that translating is basically not a process of matching surface forms by rules of correspondence, but rather a more complex procedure involving analysis, transfer, and restructuring. Such linguistic procedures as transformation and componential analysis provide far more satisfactory bases for translation than have existed in the past. At the same time, the theory of translation is able to provide linguistic science with new insights into structure and with improved methods for testing hypotheses.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , September 1969 , pp. 483 - 498
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andreyev, N. D. 1964. Linguistic aspects of translation. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, ed. by Lunt, H. G., 625–37. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1965. The atomization of meaning. Lg. 41.555–73.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1966. Transformulation: structural translation. Acta Linguistica Hafniensa 9.13044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cary, E., and Jumpelt, R. W. (eds.) 1963. Quality in translation. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Catford, J. C. 1965. A linguistic theory of translation. London: Oxford.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1968. Review of Outline of stratificational grammar, by Sydney M. Lamb. Lg. 44.593–603.Google Scholar
Colby, B. N. 1966. Ethnographic semantics: a preliminary survey. Current Anthropology 7.3–32.10.1086/200660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1965. Entailment rules in semantic theory. Project on Linguistic Analysis, Report no. 10.60–82. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Research Foundation.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1966. Toward a modern theory of case. Project on Linguistic Analysis, Report no. 15.1–24. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Research Foundation.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. Universais in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, E. and Harms, R., 1–90. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Güttinger, Fritz. 1963. Zielsprache. Zürich: Manesse Verlag.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1968. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, 3. Journal of Linguistics 4.179–215.10.1017/S0022226700001882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joos, Martin. 1962. The five clocks. (Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, publ. 22.) Bloomington.Google Scholar
Jumpelt, R. W. 1961. Die Übersetzung naturwissenschaftlicher und technischer Literatur. Berlin-Schöneberg: Langenscheidt.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J., and Fodor, Jerry. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Lg. 39.170–210.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence. 1968. On selection, projection, meaning, and semantic content. To appear in Semantics: an interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, psychology, and anthropology, ed. by Jakobovits, Leon and Steinberg, Danny.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1966. Toward a ‘notional’ theory of the ‘parts of speech’. Journal of Linguistics 2.209–36.10.1017/S0022226700001511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mounin, Georges. 1963. Les problèmes théoriques de la traduction. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. 1947. Bible translating. New York: American Society Society.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.10.1163/9789004495746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nida, Eugene A., and Taber, Charles R. 1969. The theory and practice of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Oettinger, Anthony G. 1959. Automatic (transference, translation, remittance, shunting). On translation, ed. by Brower, Reuben A., 240–67. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Oettinger, Anthony G. 1961. A new theory of translation and its application. Proceedings of the National Symposium on Machine Translation, ed. by Edmundson, H. P., 363–6. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Sanday, Peggy R. 1968. The ‘psychological reality’ of American-English kinship terms: an information-processing approach. American Anthropologist 70.508–23.10.1525/aa.1968.70.3.02a00050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turbayne, Colin Mukray. 1962. The myth of metaphor. New Haven: Yale Press Press.Google Scholar
Vinay, J. P., and Darbelnet, J. 1958. Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Montreal: Beauchemin.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1963. On the semantic structure of language. Universais of language, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H., 114–71. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1966. Explorations in semantic theory. Current trends in linguistics, III, Theoretical foundations, ed. by Sebeok, T. A., 395–477. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Weisgerber, Leo. 1962. Die sprachliche Gestaltung der Welt. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
Wonderly, William L. 1968. Bible translation for popular use. London: United Bible Societies.Google Scholar