And yet the widespread traditional practice of limiting criticism to translated texts may have a degree of justification, at least for literary texts. This kind of criticism, based solely on the translation in the target language with no consideration for the original, can be useful only if its inherent limitations are acknowledged. What lies within the range of these limitations?
9 See H. F. Foltin (1968, p. 267): âThis brings us to what for literary studies is probably the essential characteristic of inferior forms of belles lettres, namely how far they fail to integrate the elements of content, structure and style which are dependent on the constant and variable factors described above, ⊠for it is the combination of these elements that determines esthetic quality for the literary scholar. At the lowest level of quality we encounter innumerable errors of fact, composition and style that reflect the authorâs ineptitude; âŠâ In some instances, of course, the reverse process is also possible, as when comparing several translations from a single original. Horst von Tscharner (1963) gives an example of such an approach. Tscharner first gives an analysis of a poem in its original form, and then proceeds to exhibit several translations together with his comments for and against their solutions.
But usually the first step begins with the translated text. How, then, should the critic begin?
As Julius Wirl (1958, p. 64) states, âA person who cannot read the original may not be able to use the same criteria as one who can, but other criteria may be available. A novel in translation may be judged by certain values that are expected of the category, and the translation adjudged so fluent that it does not read like a translation.â But there are further questions which must also be considered: 1. whether the original was written in a fluent style so that the fluency of the translation corresponds to it; and 2. whether fluency in a translation is an absolute or a relative value, i.e., whether fluency is a necessary characteristic, something to be striven for in every kind of text under all circumstances, or even a universally desirable goal for a translation. These questions will be discussed more thoroughly elsewhere. 10
It is generally acknowledged today that a translator should have âa real talent for writing in his own languageâ (Sir Stanley Unwin, in On Translation: See GĂŒttinger [1963, p. 219]) since âclumsiness in the language of the translation has a certain prejudicial effect on the work as a whole,â because âif a translator does not have a mastery of his own language and is incapable of writing well, his translation is bound to be poor, however well he may understand the textâ (Hillaire Belloc: See GĂŒttinger[1963, p. 219]). Hans Erich Nossack (1965, p. 12) puts it even more strongly when he insists: âthe purpose is to place in the hands of the reader a readable book in the readerâs own language, and not some schoolboyâs raw gloss, reproducing sentence structures, participial constructions and the like, whether Anglicisms, Latinisms, or whatever. An awkward and artificial translation can do more to kill a foreign masterpiece than a smattering of outright errors in translation.â
10 See 6.1 (ResumĂ©s and summaries) and 6.7 (Scholarly translations). Awkward and artificial expressions in the target language can certainly be identified without reference to the original text. According to Fritz GĂŒttinger (1963, p. 143ff) a rough gauge of a [German] translation can be gained by a simple spot-check: âJust think of the words that occur most frequently in German and do not occur in the foreign language, and you can tell whether a translation is any good. In a word-for-word translation these words will be lacking because they are not in the original. The missing words tell whether the translator really knows German and can meet the first requirement for making a good translation.â
This practical rule of thumb (which has its limitations, as do all such rules) can apply not only to âwords that occur most frequently in German and do not occur in the foreign language,â but also to all the concepts and idioms that are expressed differently in the foreign language. If the critic is very knowledgeable in the source language, he will easily recognize instances in the target language where the translator has slipped up. Slips and oversights of this kind can cast a cloud on the quality of a translation.
This is illustrated by the account in the SĂŒddeutschen Zeitung for April 22, 1970, given by the Spanish news correspondent M. von Conta of his interview with the then Spanish Foreign Minister, Gregorio LĂłpez Bravo. He reported: âLĂłpez: Der Handel zwischen unsern LĂ€ndern, bei dem zum Ausdruck kommt, daĂ die deutsche Bundesrepublik einen Vorzugsplatz unter unsern KĂ€ufern und VerkĂ€ufern einnimmt âŠ.â [âLĂłpez: Trade between our countries may be characterized by the fact that the Federal Republic of Germany occupies a special place among our buyers and sellersâ]. This rendering of the Ministerâs response not only sounds odd in German (âunsere VerkĂ€ufer,â our sellers could be misunderstood), it is also grammatically wrong. The German word âHandelspartnerâ (trading partners), for which Spanish lacks a single word, did not occur to the reporter. The concept is usually expressed in Spanish by âcompradores y suministradoresâ (= âKĂ€ufer und Lieferantenâ buyers and suppliers); the literal translation in place of the idiomatic âHandelspartnerâ (trading partners) reflects an inadequate command of the language.
Another example: âDie natĂŒrliche Logik enthĂ€lt zwei Fehler: Sie sieht nicht, daĂ die SprachphĂ€nomene fĂŒr den Sprechenden weithin Hintergrundscharakter haben und mithin auĂerhalb seines kritischen BewuĂtseins und seiner Kontrolle bleibenâ [âThis simple logic has two flaws: it does not recognize that for the speaker of a language its phenomena are largely a matter of background, and consequently lie beyond the range of his critical awareness and controlâ]. Anyone with a knowledge of English would recognize the German text as a translation from an English or American source, because the English word âcontrolâ has the meaning âexercise authority overâ or âmanipulate,â while the German word âKontrolleâ is properly used only in the sense of âverificationâ or âcheckingâ. Wolf Friedrich (1969, p. 37) cites this example and comments: âIt is wrong and misleading. People can verify the phenomena of a language, but not manipulate them â this is not in their power.â
The translatorâs knowledge of a language is not to be gauged simply by the criteria of words lacking in the vocabulary of the source language, or by the recognition of false friends, but even more by what we may call supplemental words, Porzig (1962, p. 145). Even Luther had to deal with this problem. Luther (1963, p. 20f) defended his method of translating Romans 3, where the Latin does not have the word solum and he introduced the word âalleinâ (alone) in his German translation: âBut it is the nature of our German language that in speaking of two things, one of which is affirmed and the other denied, we use the word solum âalleinâ [alone or only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no] âŠ. It is the nature of the German language to add the word allein in order that the word nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete.â This âalleinâ which Luther defends is an example of supplemental words, particles which do not serve in German as relational connectives but define the nature of a sentence (a speech-act). In many other languages there are no lexical forms which correspond to these particles (such as eben, etwa, doch, nur, aber, auch, ĂŒberhaupt, etc.) in their distinctive, intensive or clarifying function. 11 In Spanish and English these nuances can only be inferred from the entire context, and then not always with certainty, so that any translation necessarily involves a degree of subjective interpretation. This is especially true of written texts where the aid of intonation which would clarify the intention of the spoken word is lacking. Especially in texts where the translation must not only be in correct but also fluent and idiomatic German, it is appropriate to make use of these particles, even when there is nothing in the literal text of the source that would correspond to them. 12
11 In German they serve to add a certain nuance to a question, an exclamation, a request, or a statement. In a question they may imply the expected answer: âSoll ich das etwa glauben?â [âShould I ever believe that?â] suggesting the answer âNo.â They may add emphasis to a request or exclamation: âDas ist doch nicht möglich!â [âThat is just impossible!â] which contrasts with the simple âDas ist nicht möglich!â by a degree of personal emphasis. See W. Porzig (1962, p. 145 f.). 12 Accordingly H. J. Kann considers the introduction of these ânecessaryâ words in a German translation as altogether commendable. See Kann (1968, p. 57): âThis subtle distinction between the two languages [conservative formal English and a more aggressive German] is made particularly noticeable by the large number of words which are necessarily added in German to flesh out the implications and emphases of the text.â Similarly pp. 84â85 and 114. When translating from German to Spanish or English, on the other hand, it is necessary to consider carefully whether these particles carry full weight in the sentence, or only serve it with an element of nuance. The decision then has to be made whether to translate them with equivalent expressions, or to ignore them (representing them by a null equivalent). 13
This suggests another criterion for judging a translation solely on the basis of its target language: a mastery of stylistic and grammatical standards must be supported by a familiarity with idiomatic usage.
13 In the sentence âIch habe dieses Buch auch gelesenâ the word auch is significant: in Spanish it would be âYo tambiĂ©n he leĂdo el libro,â and in English âI have read this book, too.â In the sentence âHast du auch gelesen, was du unterschreibst?â the auch is a nuance word. Translating it by tambiĂ©n or too would distort the meaning of the German word, so that the translation should be âÂżHas leĂdo lo que estĂĄs firmando?â or âHave you read what you are signing?â And there is yet another way of evaluating a translated text: internal inconsistencies. H. Kellner (1964, p. 87) writes: âAbsurdities may be conspicuous even without a comparison of the two texts, for which most critics do not take the time.â These âabsurditiesâ might be simple translation errors due to an inadequate knowledge of the vocabulary or grammar of the source language, or even a failure to appreciate non-verbal factors 14 operative in the target language, though this requires a comparison with the source language for confirmation. Errors of this kind generally occur on the semantic level of translation, bringing to the lexical, grammatical and stylistic criteria a fourth and last criterion which can be relevant to judging the target language version of a text.
14 See the discussion of non-verbal factors below (B.4). As we have noted, a critique based on the target language version of a text can be quite productive. But our discussion has indicated that on the whole its role in the evaluation of a translation is distinctly limited. It is limited by a lack of reference to the original, and if it is to avoid such vague generalities as âfluent translation,â âreads like an original,â 15 âuneven translation,â etc., it needs to be supplemented by a close comparison with the original. Besides, an evaluation on the basis of the translation alone has a largely negative cast. Conformity to grammatical and stylistic standards as well as lexical and semantic norms of the target language are only to be expected, or at least should be, and should warrant no particular conclusions. It can ...