A reader asks: I come from a court interpreting background, and we have to be super-faithful to the original–how much do you advise a translator to deviate (if that’s the right word) from the original?
Short answer: In 2003, PEN held a tribute to Gabriel García Márquez. Edith Grossman, (legendary translator of García Márquez and other Nobel laureates) was one of the speakers, and she explained her translation method by saying, “Fidelity is surely our highest aim, but a translation is not made with tracing paper.” I guess you have to be old enough to know what tracing paper is, but I love this quote so much that I have it posted above my desk. So that’s my short answer: be faithful to the original, but don’t be enslaved to it.
Longer answer: Every translator is going to have their own take on this question, and it depends on the specifics of the situation: are we talking about a patent or a marketing slogan? A legal brief or a poem? And what’s the purpose of the translation? To be used as a marketing slogan in another language, or just to know what it says?
Personally I’m more interested in the effectiveness of the target text than in an exact reproduction of the source text. If a client sends me a corporate communications document that’s written in typically French style (“the company” instead of “we;” lots of passive voice), I’ll nearly always rewrite it in a more active voice. Unless the client tells me otherwise, my assumption is that they want something that will work in the target culture, and passive voice and impersonal forms of address are not going to do that.
Also, there are situations in which you have to deviate from the original because your language has no way to express the individual words in the source text. An example of this would be the formal and familiar forms of address that most languages (but not English) have. If you’re translating a corporate video script and the employee calls the boss “vous” but the boss calls the employee “tu,” you have to find another way to deal with it. Maybe first name versus Mr./Ms.; but just translating the words as “you” isn’t going to get the point across.
However I do think this emphasis can go too far: a translation can be beautiful but totally inaccurate; smooth and flowing but completely different in meaning than the source text, and that’s no good either. I’ve heard translators argue that, for example, no one makes French people write in the passive voice. Presumably they’re doing so because they like the way it sounds, or they find a more active voice too harsh, like asking someone “What the %^&*& is your problem?,” rather than “Can I do anything to help you?” I’ve also heard translators argue that when someone deviates significantly from the source text, it’s because they don’t understand it thoroughly: they figure that if they make the source text very different from the original, it’s easier to cover up the lack of understanding.
There are definitely documents that call for a fairly direct translation. Birth certificates, patents and legal briefs don’t cry out for creativity. On the other end of the spectrum, literary translators have to be just as skilled as the novelists, playwrights and poets they translate for, only in two languages instead of one.
Readers: thoughts on this? Thoughts on explaining this fine line to clients?
I recently wrote a post on my blog regarding translation fidelity (found here: http://bit.ly/1GBFESr). I agree with your main posit, which is that the purpose of the translation —and the needs for its audience, should be the main driver in how we translators fashion a translation.
It’s quite telling that the person asking the question mention, as in passing, that she has a court interpreting background. First, the needs of an interpreted voice are far removed from the needs of a translated text. Again, different objectives.
And there’s no such thing as “super-faithfulness.” What is that?
I seriously deplore the blissful ignorance of basic translation theory among our colleagues. They aren’t some antiquated notions collecting dust in someone’s ivory tower, concepts unrelated to the here and now of translation. While there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all theory that may apply to all types of translations, knowing the fundamentals has proven very useful to me, especially when I need guidance to produce a translation.
Great post (and quote), Corinne!
Even in legal translation, the answer to this question varies a lot. Like you said, if you’re translating certificates, contracts, or court rulings, you really can’t deviate much from source -albeit, you have to take into account differences in legal systems and interpretations. However, legal philosophy, for example, is closer to literary translation than it is to what one might normally associate with legal translation. That’s why I think your reply is spot on!
Hi, a bit of clarity about “super-faithful,” etc. from the original poster (OP in contemporary internet lingo, I think): I’m familiar with translation theory + the thoughts expressed by Corinne in the Longer Answer. But what I’ve witnessed a time or 2 over the years, though, is when a court interpreter decides on his or her own hook that–for example–something a witness said “just isn’t important and doesn’t need to be rendered into the Target Language”–not so much that different words are used to express the same thoughts between languages.
What I was taught was that you don’t *quote* every utterance verbatim, but that you need to *account for* every utterance. I think that’s basically the court interpreter’s version of Corinne’s Long Answer, but maybe the Reader’s Condensed Version.
Yes, Corinne–I’m not only old enough to remember tracing paper, but I’m also old enough to have been trained on manual typewriters and tracing paper!
🙂
My very best to one and all.
Greetings from Asia, where I now hang my hat, and thanks for the thoughts, one and all.
Dan Villarreal
Taipei, Taiwan
Love this well-thought out post. It’s a question that comes up regularly in my work. I have been accused of being too picky but I believe that as translators we have to keep the end-user in sight and also do our very best to present the client’s work in the best possible light. It’s a bit of a juggling act at times. Thank you Corinne.
Just 2 words – it’s bedtime here in the Czech Republic but I did just want to express my appreciation for your blog post du jour :).
Dear Corinne, Funny that you say that. I always thought that the English write a lot in the passive form (in legal briefs), and I always have to put it in the active form in French (guidelines of the European Court of Justice). Thank you for the post. Sylvie.