LITERATURE METHODS

INTRODUCTIONS
            the central problem of translating has always been whether to translate literally or freely. The argument has been going on since at least the first century BC. Up to the beginning of the nineteenth century, many writers favoured some kind of ‘free’ translation: the spirit, not the letter : the sense not the words : the massage rather than the form : the matter not the manner. This was the often revolutionary slogan of writers who wanted the truth to be read and understood – Tyndale and Dolet were burned at the stake, Wyeliffs works were banned. Then at the turn of the nineteenth century, when the study of cultural anthropology suggested that the linguistic barriers were insuperable  and that language was entirely the product of culture, the view that translation was impossible gained some currency, and with it that, if attempted at all, it must be as literal as possible. This view culminated in the statement of the extreme ‘literalists’ Walter Benjamin and Vladimir Nabokov.

            The argument was theoretical: the purpose of the translation, the nature of readership, the type of text, was not discussed. Too often, writer, translator and reader were implicitly identified with each other. Now the context has changed, but the basic problem remains.

            I put it in the form of a flattened V diagram :

SL emphasis                                                                                                               TL emphasis

            Word-for word translation                                                                              Adaptation

                        Literal translation                                                                    Free translation

                                    Faithful translation                                          idiomatic translation

                                                Semantic translation                communicative translation

THE METHODS           

Word-of-word translation

            This is often demonstrated as interlinear translation, with the TL immediately below the SL words. The SL word-order is preserved and the words translated singly by their most common meaning, out of context. Cultural words are translated literally. The main use word-for word translation is either to understands the mechanics of the source language or to construe a difficult text as a pre-translation process.

Literal translation

The SL grammatical constructions are converted to their nearest TL equivalents but the lexical words are again translated singly, out of context. As a pre-translation process, this indicates the problem to be solved.

Faithful translation

            A faithful translation attempts to reproduce the precise contextual meaning of the original within the constraints of the TL grammatical structures. It ‘transfers’ cultural words and preserves the degree of grammatical and lexical ‘abnormality’ (deviation from SL norms) in the translation. It attempts to be completely faithful to the intentions and the text-realisation of the SL writer.

Semantic translation

            Semantic translation differs from ‘faithful translation’ only in as far as it must take more account of the aesthetic value (that is, the beautiful and natural sound) of the SL text, compromising on ‘meaning’ where appropriate so that no assonance, word-play or repetition jars in the finished version. Further, it may translate less important cultural words by culturally neutral third or functional terms but not by cultural equivalents – une nonne repasssant un corporal may become ‘a nun ironing a corporal cloth’ – and it may make other small concessions to the readership. The distinction between ‘faithful’ and ‘semantic’ translation is that the first is uncompromising and dogmatic, while the second is more flexible, admits the creative exception to 100% fidelity and allows for the translator’s intuitive empathy with the original.  

Adaptation

            This is the ‘freest’ form of translation. It is used mainly for plays (comedies) and poetry : the themes, characters, plots, are usually preserved, the SL culture converted to the TL culture and the text rewritten. The deplorable practice of having a play or poem literally translated and then rewritten by an established dramatist or poet has produced many poor adaptations, but other adaptations have ‘rescued’ periods plays.

Free translation

            Free translation reproduces the matter without the manner, or the content without the form of the original. Usually it is a paraphrase much longer than the original, a so-called ‘intralingual translation’, often prolix and pretentious, and not translation at all.

Idiomatic translation

            Idiomatic translation reproduces the ‘massage’ of the original but tends to distort nuances of meaning by preferring colloquialisms and idioms where these do not exist the original. (Authorities as diverse as Seleskovitch and Stuart Gilbert tend to this form of lively, ‘natural’ translation.)

Communicative translation

            Communicative translation attempts to render the exact contextual meaning of the original in such a way that both content and language are readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership. 

COMMENTS IN THESE METHODS

            Commenting on these methods, I should first say that only semantic and communicative translation fulfil the two main aims of translation, which are first, accuracy, and second, economy. (A semantic translation is more likely to be economical than a communicative translation, unless, for the latter, the text is poorly written) in general, a semantic translation is written at the author’s linguistic level a communicative at the readership’s. Semantic translation is used for ‘expressive’ texts, communicative for ‘informative’ and ‘vocative’ texts.

            Semantic and communicative translation treat the following items similarly: stock and dead metaphors. Normal collocations, technical terms, slang, colloquialisms, standard notice, phaticisms, ordinary language. The expressive components of ‘expressive’ texts are rendered closely, if not literally, but where they appear in informative and vocative texts, they are normalized or toned down. Cultural components tend to be transferred intact in expressive texts : replaced by cultural equivalents in vocative texts. Badly and/or inaccurately written passages must remain so in translation if they are ‘expressive’ although the translator should comment on any mistakes of factual or normal truth, if appropriate. Badly and/or inaccurately written passage should be ‘corrected; in communicative translation. I refer to ‘expressive’ as ‘sacred’ texts : ‘informative’ and ‘vocative’. Following Jean Delisle, as ‘anonymous’, since the status of their authors is not important.

            So much for the detail, but semantic and communicative translation must also bi seen as wholes. Semantic translation is personal and individual, follow the thought processes of the author, tends to over-translate, pursues nuances of meaning, yet aims at concision in order to reproduce pragmatic impact. Communicative translation is social, concentrates on the massage and the main force of the text, tends to under translate, to be simple, clear and brief, and is always written in a natural and resourceful style. A semantic translation is normally inferior to its original, as there is both cognitive and pragmatic loss ; a communicative translation is often better than its original. At the pinch, a semantic translation has to interpret, a communicative translation to explain.

            Theoretically, communicative translation allows the translator no more freedom than semantic translation. In fact, it does, since the translator is serving a putative large and not well defined authority, the author of the SL text.

METHODS AND TEXT-CATEGORIES

            Considering the application of the two translation methods to the three categories. I suggest that commonly vocative and informative texts are translated too literally, and expressive texts not literally enough. Translationese is the bane of tourist material and many public notices. In the UK the standard of foreign language (FL) publicity and notices is now high but there are not enough of them. In ‘informative’ texts, translationese, bad writing and lack of confidence in the appropriate linguistic register often go hand in hand; the tendency with familiar-looking but unfamiliar collocations is simply to reproduce them. On the other hand, the inaccuracy of translated literature has much longer roots: the attempt to see translation as an exercise in style, to get the ‘ flavour ’ or the ‘spirit’ of the original : the refusal to translate by any TL word that looks the least bit like the SL word, or even by the SL cord’s core meaning, so that the translation become the sequence of synonyms, which distorts its essence.

            In expressive texts, the unit of translation is likely to be small, since words rather than sentences contain the finest nuances of meaning; further, there are likely to be fewer stock language units than I other texts. However, any type and length of cliché must be translated by its TL counterpart, however badly it reflects on the writer.

            Note that I group informative and vocative texts together as suitable for communicative translation. However, further distinctions can be made.

            Unless informative texts are badly/inaccurately written, they are translated more closely than vocative texts. In principle (only!), as they are concerned with extra-linguistic facts, they consist of third person sentences, not-emotive style, past tenses. Narrative a sequence of events, is likely to be neater and closer to translate than description, which requires the mental perception of adjectives and images.

            The translation of vocative texts immediately involves translation in the problem of the second person. The social factor which varies in its grammatical and lexical reflection from one language to another. Further, vocative texts exemplify the two poles of communicative translation. On the one hand translation by standard terms and phrases is used mainly for notices: ‘transit lounge’, transithalle, sale de transit. On the other hand there is in principle, the ‘recreative’ translation that might be considered appropriate for publicity and propaganda, since the situation is more important than the language. In fact, provided is no cultural gap, such skillfully written persuasive language is often seen to translate almost literally.

            Scanning the numerous multilingual advertising leaflets available today, I notice: (a) it is hardly possible to say which is the original: (b) how closely they translate they other; (c) the more emotive their language, the more they vary from each other; (d) the variants appear justified.

            Where communicative translation of advertisements  works so admirably, producing equivalent pragmatic effect, there seem no need to have recourse to ‘co-writing’, whre two writers are given a number of basic facts about one product and instructed to write the most persuasive advert in their respective languages.

            I should mention that I have describing methods of translation as products rather than processes, as they appear in the finished translation.

TRANSLATING

            As for the process of translation, it is often dangerous to translate mor than a sentence orv two before reading the first two or three paragraphs, unless a quick glance through convinces you that the text is going to present few problems. In fact, the more difficult – linguistically, culturally, ‘referentially’ – the text is, the more preliminary work I advise you to do before you start translating a sentence, simply on the ground that one misjudged hunch about a key-word in a text - say, humoral in le bilan humoral (a fluid balance check-up) – may force you to try to put a wrong construction on a whole paragraph, wasting a lot of time before (if ever) you pull up and realize you are being foolish. This is another way of looking at the word versus sentence conflict that is always coming up. Translate by sentence wherever you can, whenever you can see the wood for the trees or get the general sense, and then make sure you have accounted for each word in the SL text. There are plenty of words, like modals particles, jargon-words or grammatically-bound words, which for goo reasons you may decide not to translate. But translate virtually by words first if they are ‘technical’, whether they are ‘linguistic’, or cultural, or referential and appear relatively context-free. Later, you have to contextualize them, and be prepared to back-track if you have opted for the wrong technical meaning.

OTHER METHODS

As a postscript to this chapter, I add further definitions of translation methods.

1.      Service translation

2.      Plain prose translation

3.      Information translation

4.      Cognitive translation

5.      Academic translation