Abstract
Throughout the history of translation, those who we now call theorists expressed their views in respect to the translation process and the desired results to be achieved by translation. They formulated their views by advocating translation ad verbum or translation ad sensum and, more recently, by defending or opposing the theory that a translation must read like an original text. Nevertheless, whatever their views, whatever the controversy they provoked, they all had one thing in commontheir definitions and their explanations were written in straightforward language. One unfortunate consequence of the present popularity of Translation Theory and Translation Studies has been the trend to eschew plain language and to use, instead, a pseudo-scientific style that often leaves the average reader in a state of mind ranging from incredulity to dizziness. The interest linguists began to show in translation about four decades ago has resulted in both benefits and losses. The benefits concern the theoretical content, the deeper insights into how language works, while the losses consist in the way in which all this is expressed. At present, teachers and students of translation are bewildered at the growing incomprehensibility of the books and articles that flood the market. The plea made in this article is for a return to plain English in Translation Studies.
he title of this articleas no doubt most people interested in
Translation Studies will have recognizedis an allusion to the
process of translating as described by one of our leading
contemporary theorists. We shall come back to this reference later
on. Let me begin by clarifying that my intention here is to draw
attention to the increasing uneasiness felt by some, many, or perhaps
most of those whose job it is to train future translators when faced
with the almost unintelligible definitions and convoluted language
that have become the fashion in Translation Theory. It looks as if,
in their endeavors to find a metalanguage that will cover all its
facets and all its implications of translation, the big names in the
subject were trying to compete for a first prize in obscurity.
It looks as if the big names in the
subject were trying to compete for a first prize in obscurity. | Without attempting to provide a full anthology of definitions, it
will be useful to begin by briefly examining what some of the great
names in the history of translation have had to say about their job.
(Notice, incidentally, that I am not joining the debate whether
translation theorists should be translators themselves or not, since
this does not affect the question of defining what is meant by
translation.)
We can begin with Leonardo Bruni, the great Italian scholar who
wrote De interpretatione recta in about 1420. According to
Bruni, translating consists in ‘quod in altera lingua scriptum
sit, in alteram recte traducatur’ (Lafarga, 1996: 80). Another
of the humanists who wrote in Latin, the Spaniard Juan Luis Vives, in
his De arte dicendi, 1532, described what he called versio
as ‘a lingua in linguam verborum traductio sensu servato’
(Lafarga, 1996: 134). It should be noted that these and other
theorists usually gave a succinct definition of translation but
qualified it afterwards with a number of remarks and explanations to
show the complexities involved. Thus, Bruni adds that a thorough
knowledge of both languageswhat we would now call the source
language and the target languageis indispensable and that there are
other complications, for example the fact that some people are good
at comprehension, but not at expression. Vives notes that sometimes
only the meaning is required, while there are other times when both
meaning and style are translated, even while he points out the
impossibility of the latter approach because languages differ so much
and because there are no two languages which are exactly the same in
all respectsa point, incidentally, already mentioned by the
earliest classics in the history of translation.
The extent to which these differences exist, and consequently the
basic impossibility of translation, never escaped the attention of
the great translators; if anything, it was stressed more and more as
time went by. At the end of the eighteenth century, Alexander Tytler,
in his well-known Essay on the Principles of Translation,
1791, began by stating that
If it were possible accurately to define, or, perhaps more
properly, to describe what is meant by a good translation,
it is evident that a considerable progress would be made towards
establishing the rules of the art; for these rules would
flow naturally from that definition or description.
He then went into the question of differences between languages
and the impossibility of keeping both form and content, finally
describing a good translation as
That in which the merit of the original work is so completely
transfused into another language as to be as distinctly
apprehended, and as strongly felt, by a native of the country to
which that language belongs as it is by those who speak the
language of the original work.
This definition somehow contradicted Tytler's previous assertion
that, since the dichotomy form/content could not be solved to
everybody’s satisfaction, the point of perfection might be
found between both; however, he also complemented his definition with
three ‘laws of translation’ which stated that the
translation should contain all the original ideas, that the style
should be the same as that found in the original, and that the
translation should read like an original text (Robinson, 1997: 209).
The period that extends, roughly, between Schleiermacher, in
Germany, and Ortega y Gasset, in Spainthat is to say, between Über
die verschiedenen Methoden des Übersetzens, 1813, and
Miseria y esplendor de la traducción, 1937was the
period in which a translation, according to some of the best-known
theorists, had to read like a translation and not like an original
text, a view reinforced by statements such as Victor Hugo’s, in
1865, ‘Une traduction est presque toujours regardée tout
d’abord par le peuple à qui on la donne comme une
violence qu’on lui fait. [...] Une langue dans laquelle on
transvase de la sorte un autre idiome fait ce qu’elle peut pour
refuser’ (Lafarga, 1996: 400). But, one should add, whatever
their views on the right way to translate and what translating
implied, they still wrote in a transparent style, be it
Schleiermacher’s reference to the possibility of taking the
author to the reader or the reader to the author, or Ortega’s
references to the intrinsic shortcomings of human language, expressed
in his admirable prose.
In more recent times, from the inception of the interest
Linguistics has devoted to translation as one aspect of human
language, definitions and the terminology used in Translation Studies
have progressively become more complex. At present, I believe, they
are simply defeating their own purpose. At first, and apart from the
introduction of some vocabulary items which gave definitions a more
precise meaning or a more scientific look, the actual information
supplied was not difficult to grasp. Thus Catford, in 1965, still
defined translation as ‘the replacement of textual material in
one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language
(TL)’ (Catford, 1965: 20). Nida and Taber, some ten years
later, were still intelligible to the reader: what was involved in
the process of translating was ‘reproducing in the receptor
language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language
message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style’
(Nida and Taber, 1974: 12). More recently, a specialist, still clear
in his use of language, defines translation as ‘the attempt to
replace a written message and/or statement in one language by the
same message and/or statement in another language’, although he
adds that this ‘provokes a continuous tension, a dialectic, an
argument based on the claims of each language. The basic loss is a
continuum between overtranslation (increased detail) and
undertranslation (increased generalization)’ (Newmark, 1995:
7).
At the same time, definitions which attempted to give a scientific
description of translation both as a process and as a result, began
to appear. A starting point could be the lecture delivered by
Alexander Ludskanov, of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in 1974,
in an attempt to bring translation into the sphere of semiotics. The
central act in translation became that of ‘semiotic transfer’
defined as ‘replacement of the signs encoding a message by
signs of another code, preserving (so far as this is possible in the
face of entropy) invariant information with respect to a given system
of reference’ (Kelly, 1979: 38). In my view, this is still
intelligible once one has read it and re-read it carefully, although
it seems to me that it does not help a lot when we try to teach
translation, even if we call it ‘the theory of translation.’
But worse was to come. To finish this brief review, it will suffice
to quote one of the recent masterpieces of obscure language:
When presenting an offer of information the source-text author
takes account of the presumed interests, expectations, knowledge
and situational constraints of the source-culture addressees. [...]
In the case of a translation, the translator is a real receiver of
the source text who then proceeds to inform another audience,
located in a situation under target-culture conditions, about the
offer of information made by the source text (Nord, 1997: 34-35).
Believe it or not, all that this means is ‘an author writes
a text in one language and a translator translates it into another.’
Now, nobody would deny the contribution made by some branches of
LinguisticsSociolinguistics or Pragmatics, for exampleto
translation theory, or the usefulness of the extensive bibliography
on the precise meaning of something like equivalence‘a
concept that has probably cost the lives of more trees than any other
in translation studies,’ according to Peter Fawcett (1997:
53)but are such convoluted definitions really necessary? Do they
actually help anyone, teacher or student? The problem is that through
specialization we have lost all sense of proportion. So muchand,
strictly speaking, so wellhas Linguistics insisted on the fact that
translation is ultimately impossible that we tend to forget that
translation has always existed and that civilization could not exist
without it. The title of this paper was an allusion to Lawrence
Venuti and his description of fluency in a translation as ‘the
ethnocentric violence of domestication,’ a violence that
conceals itself ‘by producing the effect of transparency, the
illusion that this is not a translation, but the foreign text’
(Venuti, 1995: 61). All this is clear enough, but is ‘the
ethnocentric violence of domestication’ much more than a
fanciful way of referring to the inevitable process of having to
adapt the foreign text to our own linguistic and cultural background
when we translate? Of course we ‘domesticate’ the foreign
texthow else? As to ‘ethnocentric,’ it merely
duplicates ‘domestication’: if ‘domestication’
was not ‘ethnocentric’, presumably the target text would
not have been ‘domesticated’rather, in agreement with
Schleiermacher’s precepts, it would take the reader to the
author and the ‘effect of transparency’ would not exist.
Finally, in respect to the ‘violence,’ we simply must
accept that, since ultimately translation is impossible, the target
text has to do some form of violence to the source text. It is
startling, however, to reflect that the educated reading public will
have no doubts about what a ‘good’ translation is, and
that any translation with a faulty transparency effect will be seen
as having done violence to the original.
My comments and my reflections on this subject arise from a very
simple fact: it is not just me who finds all this gobbledegook
horrendous as well as counterproductivethe problem is that our
students increasingly complain about the abstruse language they come
across when they have to deal with translation theory. And these are
well-qualified postgraduate students with a serious interest in
translation and by no means unintelligent. Of course, Translation
Studies is not the only discipline in desperate need of learning how
to speak and write properlythe sort of language nowadays used by
politicians, economists and lawyers, to mention the most notorious
examples, tells us quite clearly why the need has arisen for a Plain
English campaign. But the sad thing is that anybody dealing with
translation, be it as a translator, as a theorist, or both things at
the same time, is, by definition, a linguist, somebody whose job and
whose interest is Languagewith a capital Land somebody in that position presumably may well be interested in all forms of
teratological manifestations of Language, but will also have, as a
matter of self-esteem, the primary aim of expressing himself or
herself in plain, simple, intelligible language. My plea, in short,
is for translation theorists to go back to the style that simply says
something like ‘to translate is to write what was previously
written in one language in another language.’ Let them, after
having said this, qualify the statement as much and as precisely as
they likebut in plain language, please.
Bibliographical references
Bruni, Leonardo (c. 1420) De interpretatione recta,
see Francisco Lafarga, ed.
Catford, J.C. (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation,
Oxford, O.U.P.
Fawcett, Peter (1997) Translation and Language, Manchester,
St. Jerome Publishing
Hugo, Victor (1865) Prologue to the translation of Shakespeare’s
Works, see Francisco Lafarga, ed.
Kelly, Louis G. (1979) The True Interpreter. A History of
Translation Theory and Practice in the West, Oxford, Basil
Blackwell
Lafarga, Francisco, ed. (1996) El discurso sobre la traducción
en la historia, Barcelona, EUB
Ludskanov, Alexander (1974) see Louis G. Kelly
Newmark, Peter (1995) Approaches to Translation, Hemel
Hempstead: Phoenix ELT
Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber (1974) The Theory and
Practice of Translation, Leiden, E.J. Brill
Nord, Christiane (1997) Translation as a Purposeful Activity,
Manchester, St. Jerome Publishing
Ortega y Gasset, José (1937) ‘Miseria y esplendor de
la traducción’, in Obras completas, Madrid, 1983
Robinson, Douglas (1997) Western Translation Theory,
Manchester, St. Jerome Publishing
Schleiermacher, Friedrich (1813) Über die verschiedenen
Methoden des Übersetzens, in Sämtliche Werke,
Berlin, 1838
Tytler, Alexander Fraser (1791) Essay on the Principles of
Translation, see Douglas Robinson
Venuti, Lawrence (1995) The Translator’s Invisibility,
London, Routledge
Vives, Juan Luis (1532), De arte dicendi, see Francisco
Lafarga, ed.
|