Translating vs interpreting
A distinction is made between
translation ,
which consists of transferring ideas expressed in writing from
one language to another, from interpreting ,
which consists of transferring ideas expressed orally ,
or by the use of gestures (as in the case of sign
language), from one language to another.
Although interpreting can be considered a subcategory
of translation as far as the analysis of the processes involved
is concerned ( translation studies ),
in practice the talents required for these two activities are
quite different.
(Back to Free Translation
UK Menu)
Translation Process
UK
The translation process ,
whether it be for translation or interpreting, can be described
simply as:
- Decoding the meaning of the source text, and
- Re-encoding this meaning in the target language.
To decode the meaning
of a text the translator must first identify its component " translation
units ", that is to say the segments of the text to be
treated as a cognitive unit. A translation unit may be a word
, a phrase or even one or more sentences .
Behind this seemingly
simple procedure lies a complex cognitive operation. To decode
the complete meaning of the source text, the translator must
consciously and methodically interpret and analyses all its
features. This process requires thorough knowledge of the
grammar, semantics , syntax , idioms and
the like of the source language, as well as the culture of
its speakers.
The translator
needs the same in-depth knowledge to re-encode the meaning
in the target language. In fact, often translators' knowledge
of the target language is more important, and needs to be
deeper, than their knowledge of the source language. For
this reason, most translators translate into a language of
which they are native speakers .
In addition, knowledge of the subject matter being discussed
is essential.
In recent years studies in cognitive
linguistics have been able to provide valuable insights
into the cognitive process of translation.
(Back to Free Translation
UK Menu)
Measuring
Success in Translation
As
the goal of translation is to ensure that the source and the
target texts communicate the same message while taking into
account the various constraints placed on the translator, a
successful translation can be judged by two criteria:
- Faithfulness , also called fidelity ,
which is the extent to which the translation accurately renders
the meaning of the source text, without adding to it or subtracting
from it, and without intensifying or weakening any part of
the meaning; and
- Transparency , which is the extent to which the
translation appears to a native speaker of the target language
to have originally been written in that language, and conforms
to the language's grammatical, syntactic and idiomatic conventions.
A translation meeting the first criterion is said to be a "faithful
translation"; a translation meeting the second criterion is
said to be an "idiomatic translation".
The criteria used to judge the faithfulness of a translation
vary according to the subject, the precision of the original
contents, the type, function and use of the text, its literary
qualities, its social or historical context, and so forth.
The criteria for judging the transparency of a translation
would appear more straightforward: an unidiomatic translation "sounds" wrong,
and in the extreme case of word-for-word translations generated
by many machine translation systems,
often result in patent nonsense.
Nevertheless, in certain contexts a translator may knowingly
strive to produce a literal translation. For example, literary
translators and translators of religious works often adhere
to the source text as much as possible. To do this they deliberately "stretch" the
boundaries of the target language to produce an unidiomatic
text. Likewise, a literary translator may wish to adopt words
or expressions from the source language to provide "local colour" in
the translation.
The concepts of fidelity and transparency are
looked at differently in recent translation theories. The idea
that acceptable translations can be as creative and original
as their source text is gaining momentum in some quarters.
The concepts of fidelity and transparency remain
strong in Western traditions, however. They are not necessarily
as prevalent in non-Western traditions. For example, the Indian epic Ramayana has
numerous versions in many Indian
languages and the stories in each are different from one
another. If one looks into the words used for translation in
Indian (either Aryan or Dravidian) languages, the freedom given
to the translators is evident.
(Back to Free Translation
UK Menu)
Translation
Problems
General problems
Translation is inherently a difficult activity. Translators
can face additional problems which make the process even more
difficult, such as:
- Problems with the source text:
- Changes made to the text during the translation process
- Illegible text
- Misspelt text
- Incomplete text
- Poorly written text
- Missing references in the text (e.g. the translator
is to translate captions to missing photos)
- Language problems
- Dialect terms and neologisms
- Unexplained acronyms and
abbreviations
- Obscure jargon
- Other
- Rhymes, puns and poetic
meters
- Highly specific cultural references
- Subtle but important properties
of language such as euphony or dissonance
The problem of "untranslatability"
The question of whether particular
words are untranslatable is
often debated, with lists of "untranslatable" words being produced
from time to time.
These lists often include words such as saudade ,
a Portuguese word
(also used in Spanish )
as an example of an "untranslatable". It translates quite neatly
however as "sorrowful longing", but does have some nuances
that are hard to include in a translation; for instance, it
is a positive-valued concept, a subtlety which is not clear
in this basic translation. Some words are hard to translate
only if one wishes to remain in the same grammatical category.
For example, it is hard to find a noun corresponding
to the Russian ????????? ( pochemuchka )
or the Yiddish ?????? ( shlimazl ),
but the English adjectives "inquisitive" and "jinxed" correspond
just fine.
Linguists are naturally
enthusiastic about obscure words with local flavour, and
are wont to declare them "untranslatable",
but in reality these incredibly culture-laden terms are the
easiest of all to translate, even more so than universal concepts
such as "mother". This is because it is standard practice to
translate these words by the same word in the other language,
borrowing it for the first time if necessary. For example,
an English version of a menu in a French restaurant would rarely
translate pâté de foie gras as "fat
liver paste", although this is a good description. Instead,
the accepted translation is simply pâté de
foie gras , or, at most, foie gras pâté .
In some cases, only transcription is
required: Japanese ?? translates into English as wasabi .
A short description or parallel with a familiar concept is
also often acceptable: ??? may also be translated | 