Fedorov's Introduction to Translation Theory

Brian James Baer, Brian James Baer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781351581110
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Translating & Interpreting
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This is the first English translation of Andrei V. Fedorov's classic 1953 text Vvedenie v teoriiu perevoda / Introduction to Translation Theory. Fedorov was the first to argue that translation theorizing should be based on linguistics, due to the fact that language is the common denominator of all translation. In addition, this text offers a concise but thorough comparative overview of thinking on translation in Western Europe and Russia.

The detailed annotations and substantial introduction by the leading scholar and award-winning translator Brian James Baer inscribe Fedorov's work in the political and cultural context of the Soviet Union, highlighting the early influence of Russian Formalism on Fedorov's thinking. This volume is a model of scholarly translation that fills a major gap in our understanding of Soviet translation theory, which will compel a rethinking of current histories of the field.

Contributing to the important work of internationalizing and generating new histories of translation studies, this volume is key reading for scholars and researchers of the history, theory, and politics of translation studies; comparative literature; and Russian and Slavic studies.

1 Translation theory as a scholarly discipline

1.1 The concept of translation as a form of creative activity in the field of language

The range of activities covered by the concept “translation” is very broad. Things translated from one language into another include poems, literary prose, works of science and of popular science related to various domains of knowledge, diplomatic and commercial documents, articles by political figures and speeches by orators, newspaper articles, and conversations among individuals speaking different languages who need the help of an intermediary, an interpreter.^a Despite the specific demands made on the translator by certain types of material and by certain tasks, and despite the differences in the talent and in the extent and nature of the knowledge required in certain circumstances, there are two conditions that apply to all types of translation:

(1)The purpose of the translation, which is to acquaint the reader (or listener) who does not know the language of the original as closely as possible with a given text or the contents of a speech.

(2)The act of translation, which signifies the accurate and complete expression through the means available in one language that which was already expressed by the means available in another language in an inseparable unity of content and form. In its fullness and accuracy, translation proper can be distinguished from reworkings, paraphrases, abridged versions, and every form of so-called adaptation.

The role of language in translation is the same as the one it always plays in social life, a role defined very succinctly by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The German Ideology:

Language is as old as consciousness, language is practical consciousness that exists also for other men, and for that reason alone it really exists for me personally as well; language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, the necessity, of intercourse with other men.

(V: 44)^b

As Vladimir Lenin wrote: “Language is the most important means of human intercourse” (XX: 396).^c Joseph Stalin has spoken in detail about language as a means of communication in his writings on linguistics, where he offers the following formulation:

Language is a means, an instrument, with the help of which people communicate ideas to one another and achieve mutual understanding. Directly linked to thought, language registers and consolidates in words and in combinations of words in sentences the results of thinking, the achievements of a person’s mental labor and, in doing so, makes possible the exchange of thoughts in human society.

(Stalin 1952: 22)

This thesis, of course, also relates to the use of language in translation. Here we are concerned with the transmission of thoughts first expressed in one language and communicated to a reader or listener who speaks another. And to the extent that “naked thoughts, liberated from their linguistic material, liberated from their linguistic ‘initial matter,’ do not exist” (Stalin 1952: 23) and “the reality of thought is manifested in language” (Stalin 1952: 39), the transmission of thoughts can occur only by linguistic means.

From this thesis one can draw the following specific conclusion regarding the activity of translators, namely, that it is essential that the expression of the original thought in a translation reach the reader with all the clarity and completeness inherent in the original. This also requires that the translation correspond to the general linguistic norms of the language into which the translation is being done. This is the first condition of a translation, that it be understandable and therefore accessible to the reader.

The content of the original is directly and inseparably tied to the forms of the language in which it was made. For the reader whose native language is different and who is not fluent in the language of the original but can nonetheless read it, all the thoughts and images called forth by the original will inevitably switch over to the plane of his native language. This insight, derived from Stalin’s writings on linguistics and applied to translation, is fully in accord with the famous comment by Marx: “[T]he novice studying a foreign language always translates it mentally into his native language” (I: 212).

The translator, especially the professional translator, represents, as a rule, another type or degree of mastery of the foreign language, when, to use Marx’s phrase, “the spirit of the new language” has been so thoroughly mastered that it is possible to use the language “without mentally translating it” (I: 212). But regardless of the degree of fluency, the translator, due to the very nature of the work, constantly switches from one language to the other.

The process of translation, no matter how psychologically complex it may be, cannot produce a “stripping bare” of thought; in other words, it does not permit some intermediary stage when a thought is supposedly separated from its original linguistic form but is not yet embodied in the linguistic form of another language, existing somehow “on its own,” like some fleshless being.

Of course, in the consciousness of the translator fully exact and cogent sentences or combinations of words may not appear immediately in his native language. The process of translation may involve a whole series of stages; only at the final one will a fully clear and cogent formulation of thoughts and images be achieved. But regardless of the degree of clarity, these thoughts and images at every stage of the translation process will have a linguistic character.

“Ideas do not exist separated from language” (Marx and Engels IV: 99). This is why in every case where it is necessary to explain a thought, whether that thought is expressed in one’s native language or in a foreign one, or to interpret it or to point out some misunderstanding of the thought or a mistake in rendering the thought (in particular, mistakes of translation), we must resort to linguistic means, which are fully capable of meeting those demands. That is, they are not only the naturally suitable means for achieving the above-mentioned goals, but they are also entirely sufficient.

The process of translation, no matter how quickly it is completed in some individual cases, inevitably falls into two stages. In order to translate something, one must first of all understand, clarify, and interpret it for oneself (with the help of linguistic images, that is, already with elements of translation). Later, one must find and select the corresponding means of expression (words, collocations, and grammatical forms) in the language into which the translation is being done.

Every interpretation of the original, whether correct or not, and the translator’s relationship to that interpretation, whether positive or negative, results—over the course of translation—in the selection of linguistic means from the resources of the target language.

When the translator has a subjective and emotional relationship to the original, he will introduce into the original, either through unconscious reinterpretation or conscious distortion, content that is different from the content it possesses; the translator will see in the words of the original (or impose upon them) meanings they do not objectively have according to the context, and will establish arbitrary connections among them.

The history of translation knows many cases in which the original is reinterpreted by the translator or is subjected to deliberate distortions and falsifications. (This happens primarily with literary and political texts.) Such reinterpretations and distortions of the original have always found their specific linguistic expression through the selection of certain linguistic means (words, grammatical forms, and so on) over others. Expressed in this selection of linguistic means is the translator’s relationship to the content of the translated text.

In addition, we know of many cases from literary history and, in particular, from the example of Soviet translation history, where the original is interpreted and translated into another language in a completely objective fashion. And in all such cases the possibility of objective perception, understanding, and interpretation of the original was conditioned by the fact that the ideational and artistic content of the original was expressed by means of the broadly accepted resources of the national language in which it was done. It is precisely on the basis of these objective and generally accepted resources, which form a unity of form and content in the original, that we are able to assess whether the translation is correct or whether the translator has introduced arbitrariness.

The translator who works consciously rather than mechanically can under no circumstances be indifferent in his selection of linguistic means. The task itself—to objectively represent the original—produces a desire in the translator to select the appropriate linguistic means in the translator’s native language based on a correct interpretation of the original.

When working on his translation, the translator always displays his understanding of the translator’s task as a selection of linguistic means. Veracity, as a fundamental feature of Soviet translation, is displayed not only when the work at hand concerns a text that is to some extent ideologically resonant for us or that is far away from us in terms of the worldview described but that contains progressive (at least for its time) elements that are valuable in terms of art or thought, but also when he is translating, for example, for our newspapers, hostile texts written by reactionary political figures from capitalist countries or by war-mongering orators and journalists (usually accompanied by commentary from our press). In both cases the task of the Soviet translator is not to tone down, smooth out, or beautify the text. The precondition for performing this task is the correct interpretation of the text for translation, and the condition for accomplishing it is the correct selection of linguistic means.

1.2 The subject of translation theory and its place among other philological disciplines

From the discussion above, it is clear that the translator’s job is complex, consisting in the constant search for the linguistic means to express the unity of content and form represented by the original, and in the selection of linguistic means from among the various options. This process of searching and selection is in all cases a creative one. The translation of artistic and political texts, as well as the translation of scholarly works that are characterized by an expressive use of language, is an art and requires literary talent.

It is necessary to distinguish translation as a creative process, as an art, from the theory of translation as a separate scholarly discipline, the task of which is to derive general conclusions from the observation of individual instances of translation and to provide a theoretical foundation for translation practice that could guide practitioners in the search for and selection of the necessary means of expression and could provide arguments and evidence to support the resolution of specific problems.

The practical significance of a theory of translation lies in the need for objective, research-based principles that would rule out subjective behavior on the part of translators and references to “intuition” as a justification for arbitrariness. All theoretical activity requires theoretical generalization, which makes it possible to derive broadly applicable conclusions and to overcome empiricism and amateurish modes of practice. It is no coincidence that the greatest translators of the past and of today relied on and continue to rely on a specific system of theoretical views in the field of translation, linked to their views on language and literature, and to their worldview.

The scholarly value of translation theory lies in the multifaceted interest it inspires in its object, translation, as a creative activity tied to language that inevitably entails bringing two languages into contact and rendering the original by means of the linguistic resources of another language. Translation and the contiguity of languages initiated by it raise a host of issues that would not have arisen in relation to any one of these languages separately, and analysis of those issues allows us better to understand the specific features of those languages.

Issues of translation can be examined from many different perspectives. One could study the selection of texts for translation from the point of view of their content, their intellectual or artistic value, or their representativeness for a given literary tradition. One could also study the role of translated works in the context of the receiving literature or the degree to which the translation reflects the individuality of the translator, his worldview, his literary views and artistic style, as well as the tastes of his country and historical period. Finally, one could document the history of the reinterpretations—and at times downright distortions—to which a specific literary masterpiece has been subjected.

Translation as a specific psychological and creative process could be studied within the field of psychology, as well as within specific literary and historical contexts. Insofar as translation always has to do with language, always involves working with language, translation demands to be studied primarily from a linguistic perspective related to the nature of the relationship between the two languages involved and their stylistic means of expression. Moreover, the study of translation in literary contexts constantly runs up against the necessity of examining linguistic phenomena, analyzing and evaluating the linguistic resources used by translators. And this is only natural as the content of the original does not exist on its own but only in unity with its form, that is, with the linguistic resources in which it is embodied, and can only be rendered in translation by linguistic means. The role of translation in the literature of a country and the reinterpretation or distortion of an original in translation also involve the use of specific linguistic means. The psychology of a translation has to do with the relationship of language to thought, with linguistic images. And so, the study of translation from the point of view of literary and cultural history or from the point of view of psychology is impossible without analyzing its linguistic nature.

A linguistic approach to the study of translation has the very important advantage of touching the very core of translation: language, without which translation could not fulfill any function, be it sociopolitical, cultural, or literary. Moreover, the linguistic study of translation, that is, the study of the correspondences between the two languages involved, allows us to conduct our work on an empirical basis, relying on objective linguistic facts. Any study or discussion of how the content of an original is reflected in a translation and of the role played by a translation in a given country’s literature will ...