Translations and schools of
thought
According to the school of
thought “cibliste”
(target language), it is necessary to privilege the
accuracy of the intentions of a text at the expense of
the style. To give the right message, the translation
might replace some cultural elements of the original
text with some examples, the equivalent known by the
target language public. The most important thing is to
keep the sense of the message that the author wants to
communicate to his public. The translator has to be able
to pass on this message in an idiomatic way and in the
more natural way for the target language reader. He has
to keep the same kind of language, register and tone
used by the author in the source language. According to
the school of thought “sourciere” (source
language)
the translator will
have to keep the style of the text the more unchanged
possible to the original one. The translator will have
to reproduce the stylistic elements of the original
text, use the same tone, keep all the cultural elements
like they are in the source text and in some cases, to
force the target language into the form and style of the
source language.
Difficulties concerning
specific translation fields
To realize useful and
pragmatic translations it is necessary to have a good
knowledge of terminology and know to choose the right
words. A translation that doesn't reflect the daily use
and the evolution of a language won't interest the
readers, just like if we write like they used to write
in the 1750. Some translation fields, such as the IT
one, change and evolve very fast, so fast that the
terminology of the target language (for example Italian)
won't follow the rhythm of new terminology of the source
language (as English). In such a situation the
translator can't use the equivalent vocabulary,
therefore he's forced to use a neologism more or less
equivalent or use the original term (for example
computer, mouse, monitor, hard disk etc). The
translation of IT programs is a process which detaches
itself from a simple textual translation.
Double translation
problems
One of the difficulties
well known by translators, ignored by those who are not,
is the fact that sometimes the text to be translated is
already a translation itself; a translation is not
always a good translation, and in this case it is
necessary for the translator to go back to the original
text. One of the best example are the Gospels; the
oldest texts are reported in Greek, but originally they
were written in Aramaic. Because of the disappearing of
the original texts, if they have ever existed, there are
endless quarrels between experts.
Today, this phenomenon has
amplified. In the first place there is the use of a
“bridge language”; if we have to translate a text
written in Estonian into modern Greek , it is very
difficult to find a translator who perfectly knows both
languages and has a knowledge about the subject of the
text. Normally the translator will start his job from an
English translation. The inaccuracy of this language can
create some difficulties, as Claude Piron says, giving us
an example with this sentence which translation in
french had to be verified:
|
“He
could not agree with the amendments to the draft
resolution proposed by the delegation of India”.
The first translator couldn't know if “proposed”
referred to “amendments” or to “resolution” and he had
chosen the wrong solution. Claude Piron that
disposed of the original text could correct the mistake.
The English language supposed to be understood by
everybody, has always been considered the “bridge
language”. For example, if an Italian company would have
to write to a French one, the simplest way would be to
write everything in Italian in the clearest way
possible, checking it and correcting mistakes before
sending it. The French company would then commit an
Italian-French translator to have the translated text
the closest as possible to the original one. In reality
instead, the Italian company would consider more polite
to translate the text in English, a translation that
could contain some mistakes. The person who will receive
that text might not understand
the translated text and
therefore would commit the translation to an
English-French translator, which might have more
difficulties in translating a translated text than
translating the original one in Italian.
Translation criticism
To get a “clever”
translation it's better to forget what we learned at
school or at the university, but to keep in mind the
proofreaders' rules. Some of them want a Latin text to
keep the Latin “taste”, therefore they would prefer “a
bronze gladiolus”
than “a
bronze sword”.
This shows the difference between a school translation
and a professional translation. Professors agree on this
principle: “If
a sentence is ambiguous, the translation has to be
ambiguous too”.
But in the case of “his secretary” or “her secretary”
which translator wouldn't try to understand if we're
talking about a female or male secretary? Translating
sometimes means to choose. There is another criticism
arousing from an Italian sentence: “Translator,
betrayer”
(Traduttore, Traditore).
This criticism claims that
every translation betrays the author, his text, his
style, because of different choices that a translator is
forced to do. What has to be sacrificed then, between
the brevity and clarity if in the original text the
formula is short and forceful but impossible to
translate it in few words keeping the sense of the
original text? The translator Pierre Leyris answers to
this criticism saying that “Translating is the honesty
to adhere to an allusive imperfection”
(Source: Wikipedia)
The
Freelance Translator
Technical Translations and Literary Translations
Translation is an Art
|
