Translation Criticism--- Potentials Infinite, Limitations Plenty
The "Translation Criticism" is the 25th book of the foreign translation theory study series, as its writer is Katharina Reiss, a German. Unfortunately there could not be any data available about the author either on WIKIPEDIA or GOOGLE. What I know about the writer is that she wrote this book more than 30 years ago, in German, thus the book I read is English translated(a bit ironic, as theories of translation criticism also work with the book) and somehow out-of-date as it ignores the impact of machine translation brought by networked computers. However, the book is indeed very instructive as an entrance of judging the function of translated works.
I. Introduction
Introduction of this book aims to give readers when and how translation criticism appeared. Obviously, translation criticism considers the art of translation. Early criticism merely judge a translated script simply "good" or "bad", while later translation criticism gradually set its eyes further.
Since critics could make various highlights to one translated scripts, there could not be any clearly defined standards to judge a paper of translation criticism "good" or "bad" as critics do with original translated scripts. It must be much more difficult to find proofs to review a paper on translation criticism, as researchers must learn the original literature, the translated script (and other versions), the paper of criticism, and fluentness of both source and target languages. As it states on page 6, "……Reviews that are purportedly objective, representing translation criticism in the strict sense, all too often lack any defined points of reference, overarching integrity, or pertinent categories, so that the final result is an impression of complete arbitrariness."
For instance, one of those problems is that there are too much so called translation theories governing the translation criticism so much, that critics would not take action (as some certain theory even considers translation is "mission impossible").The book, as the author mentioned, "from the general to particular", aims to solve this and other problems by finding the core value system of what a good translation criticism should do. The author concludes her wish in page 8 as "…When it is particularly useful or when central problems are involved, special aspects of the procedures followed by translation critics will be reviewed."
However, I do doubt whether her goal is possible, as there is a fatal aspect forgotten. In the introduction part, the author does not even state whether translation criticism belongs to the field of translation theory studies or could be listed separately. Personally speaking, I think translation criticism must identify itself first.
Below is the definition of criticism on WIKIPEDIA:
Criticism in terms of expectations means democratic judgment over the suitability of a subject for the intended purposes, as opposed to the authoritarian command, which is meant as an absolute realization of the authority's will, thus not open for debate.
Criticism is the activity of judgment or informed interpretation and, in many cases, can be synonymous with "analysis." In literary and academic contexts, the term most frequently refers to literary criticism, art criticism, or other such fields, and to scholars' attempts to understand the aesthetic object in depth. In these contexts the term "critic," used without qualification, most frequently refers to a scholar of literature or another art form.
As it mentioned above, on translation criticism, critics have to do analysis on both originals and those translated scripts, as for understanding the object only. Therefore, I consider translation criticism should consider on the content of certain translations, instead of putting theories first.
The book divided its content into two parts: Potentials and Limitations, and the latter part is less considered than the previous. The report will be mainly in two parts too.
II. Potentials
1.
In page 9, author of this book gives a fallacy: when can a translation criticism can be studied without learning the original: "…only if its inherent limitations are acknowledged." However, suppose enough limitations are known, critics must have to master both source and target language. Apparently such condition could be only available between European readers (that every language does not differ much). So most of the time, readers, especially critics would have to review some certain literary with original and translated works.
Author of this book, holds a unique of valuing a translated works. In page 10, she points that "…whether fluency in a translation is an absolute or a relative value". Under her theory, we could not trust a fluently translated work so much as it may vary or even not loyal to the original. Her consideration of a competence of writing; use of supplemental words (though not necessary); good understanding to the value system of both languages (how to choose suitable words and idioms…
However, these do have weak points, as she touches the red line again: the original language and source language, for most of the readers, could not know both---as this is the true reason for they choose the translated instead of the original. What's worse, there could never be any standard of valuing translation. Under one theory, some version of translation may be quite unbearable, while on changed a new theory, it would just be okay.
Therefore, the author again supposes two point of universal agreement on "good" translation:
"…that translation criticism should be constructive, would rule out judging a translation solely on the basis of its faults."
"…the overall spirit of the book"
Again she sets back to "信，达",while fluency, maybe "雅" is abandoned in page 10.
2.
It is of no doubt that translation criticism without the source language text would be a mess. The necessities are listed as (1) distinguishing types of texts ;( 2) for all linguistic and (3) non-linguistic factors; This chapter is probably the most important chapter of this book.
2.1
So as to translate well, "…translators of literary works must themselves be talented creative writers."(Page 17) So on translating different contents, various translation tactics could be considered. Although researchers like Otto Kade had tried to find "ideal types" of literary translation, yet it is not so realizing. Translators feel like to translate certain contents due to their own interests, (as it is the motivation of translating).
2.2
Translators and their critics must share a common value system; else it would be not so acceptable. Every language system has at least three elementary functions: content-focused, form-focused, and persuasive functions. That is, representation, expression and persuasion. A competent translated work must try its best satisfying these three standards.
Of course, currently, "audiomedial type", as mostly set for singing and chanting, are supposed to be the forth element. But such may deal with medias out of linguistic features, so the author does not refer too much.(Personally, if this audiomedial type could be understood, current means of IC, such as Online chat and Podcast, should be also be well considered by their functions, but that could be going too far).
Of this chapter, there are a few points:
(1)The definition of stylistics is not as narrow as we could imagine.
(2)Existence is reasonable. Since the original uses some certain kind of way narrating, the translated works should use that too.
(3)Despite the fact that "in identifying a text's type the analysis must be independent of literary classifications" (Page 34), poems, most of the time, are assigned as form-focused.
(4)Content-focused texts can be translated with changes, while form-focused texts need accuracy.
However, in page 33 the author points that "…We characterize form-focused texts as source language oriented texts." This maybe not so exact, for example, Zhu Shenghao translated Shakespeare's works in certain preserved form, but the content had been changed a lot due to the translator's own motivation.
The author considered advertisements form-focused. While personally speaking, advertisements must contain certain information for receivers dealing. (And due to the cultural variety, almost every company tries to send different advertisements to different markets, so translation becomes less important).
2.3
The chapter means as follows: It is already widely accepted that no translation is perfect, so every translation needs to make compromise, which needs careful dealings.
3. Linguistic components of translation criticism
Translation is originally set for communication, so linguistic features of the original text are usually taken used in the translated works.
"Every act of translating involves first recognizing the potential equivalents, and then selecting from among them the one best adapted to the particular context, also considering how well each element in the translation unit fits the overall context."
On further division, translation criticism could be set into two categories: linguistic and pragmatic. It is of undeniable certainty that both factors are crucial to the success during a translation, as they are the keys of finding whether originals and translated are equivalent
Of linguistic components, there are semantic elements, lexical elements,, grammatical elements, stylistic elements, etc.
4.
This chapter mainly concerns about the extra-linguistic determinations: facts concerned, hearers, speakers, subjective implications involved.
(1)While translating, translator must notice the creation time of the original so he could make some necessary changes if his epoch had been gone too far from period of the source text, especially in the field of stylistics(Translating "thou", "thee" to 汝，尔等, for example).
(2)Thanks to the cultural factor, "It is especially difficult to translate into a target language lacking similar kinds of places, attempting to describe things which are beyond the range of its speakers' imagination."(Page 74) That is, how to create thing from none.
(3)The translation methods used for hard-to-explain words, phrases, and phenomenon, listed with examples:
Loan words;(Chinese borrow 干部,政治, etc, from Japanese translation of politic studies)
Creating brand new words;(beef steak for 牛排 or 牛扒)
Footsteps;(Cho-ko Leung,诸葛亮①, …①One of the most famous intelligent ancient Chinese premier of Post Han Dynasty, AD 264-350) Usually footsteps affects fluent reading.
Explanatory translation(Chinese translation of Jeep:吉普车,通常为四驱驱动汽车,结构粗犷,能适应恶劣路况和山路)
On making translation criticism, critics need to get clear idea of the original, thus he could have better understanding of the target.
4.5
The core value of translation is to make ideas well understood. Therefore usually form, rather than contents, could be victim-ed. We translate politic pamphlet with the phrase 司马昭之心, we tends to translate it into "as everyone well knows", other than any other literal making-ups.
4.6 & 4.7
The writing style of the original text could somehow be well considered, especially on novel translation, as one could never translate Jack London's collection with French etiquette expressions.
Swear words maybe somewhat difficult to be translated as none could rehearse the situation again.
Of course, what referred above could only be extreme examples, while setting a standard for a translated work "good' or "bad" could always be the mission impossible. No critics could focus on all those elements while making criticism as such attempt is not practical.
Not referring on linguistic components, but on a "purely objective nature" (Page 87) may be helpful for objective judgments, but such may had gone too far.
III.
The book paid less attention to the limitation of translation criticism. In fact, personally speaking, to translate is to "revolt" or "betray" the originals, so there could never be a perfect, 100% pure translation. Making well accepted translation is much more difficult than generating one's own works, as it well knows.
Thanks to the reason listed above, translation had been leashed since the day of its birth.
5.
It is not so surprising on finding a translated work has totally different style with the original, on condition that the translated may has a different attempt with the motivation of writing the original. However, whether considering this style-changed translated work a translation, or rather "recreation", yet remains unsolved as functional approach did not and could not make satisfied answer.
After all, adaption is not translation, though currently it is accepted that translators could not be totally "hidden" from telling his own ideas. Moreover, every reader may holds a different view reading a same novel, and translators are initially readers, so these factors all credit to the widening gap between readers(critics) and translators.
On translation motivation, critics have make hide-and-seek games with the translators; this also makes judging a translated work difficult.
6.
On dealing translation of particular functions, it is also important to judge the translation "good" or "bad" for their needs.
However, personally, in Page 95, the author considers bible translation to be appeal-focused, which may not be so correct since the content, form of the bible take much more important values while being translated, as such is the real reason for great care on making bible translations.
Author gives an example of bible translation. Because of dynamical equivalence, in some certain version, greetings by kiss are replaced by handshake (Page 97).
From the facts listed above, what can be acknowledged is that a comparison between two different versions of same original is quite necessary and promising as different attempts and motivations could be traced.
7.
There is no specific rule for every translation. However, for some certain target readers, there must be adjustments. Author of the book considers youth reading materials must be adapted to fit the needs of readers rather than to get the content accurate(China imported fairly tales from Europe but ticked off many because of pornography and violent sceneries). Besides children, moral, religious, ideological and commercial censorship must be affecting translation process. So translation critics have to well consider the reason of why had it be translated in some particular way.
8.
Besides objective limitations of translation criticism, yet there are subjective limits, which are mainly caused by critics.
(1)On making criticism over a translated work, a competent critic ought to view the literary as a whole rather than to divide it into pieces.
(2)The translator's personality, though usually ignored in the part, is awakening. However, personally speaking, author of the book credits the "translator determinism", yet currently there are far more original text focused translations than adaption writings, and it is a well seen trend that translators still tends to hide themselves on the process of translation.
After all, translation criticism must be adjusted under certain measurements and targets, at least expressions like "good" or "bad" could be eliminated, or used only when grammatical or typographical errors are generated(Page 109).
IV.
Conclusion part of the book revises main ideas within:
Translation criticism is both text-oriented (standards of text type) and goal-oriented (functional considerations), but it is affected by subjective influences talked about in Chapter 8, and eventually becomes s a thing hardly to be objective.
On finished reading this book, my feeling is the book tends to write so well-planned that it has covered too many viewpoints, with few supportive considerations and her personal ideas. What's worse, the writers maybe sometimes over confirming of her suggestions, as if they are all correct. Whatsoever, the book is indeed a good book for a brief introduction of listing possibilities while making translation criticism: potentials infinite, limitations plenty.
REFERER:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic
No comments:
Post a Comment