Translation Theories
If we delve into the translation theories through the history, we will see that every one of them promotes a specific ideology; therefore, we should admit that criticizing a translation theory inevitably entails criticizing the ideology beyond that theory.
If we were to sample the characteristics being considered as characteristics of good translation in most of the academic institutions of translation pedagogy, we would most probably find out that accuracy, adherence to the source text form and source authors style and intention, in a word loyalty and faithfulness to ST and ST author are among the first and most important criteria often mentioned for evaluating a translation. The above-mentioned criteria seem to be first and foremost moral values in the ideological system of those who believe in them; in other words, the ideology behind such kind of approach to translation could be called a moralistic Ideology.
Moralism in Translation Theories
A moralistic approach towards translation introduces ST authors as the legitimate owner of their textual creations. In this view translator is seen as a person who trespass the exclusive realm of the original writers, trying to share in their power and property. The act of translation is considered to be unethical in a moralistic ideology, often stigmatized as in the Penetration stage of Steiners hermeneutics as an aggressive act comparable to robbery and plundering. If we see ideology as a vehicle to promote or legitimate interests of a particular social group, then a moralistic ideology in translation seeks to safeguard the interests of those in the author camp. Those who are in the author camp know that retaining power in a discursive environment requires a complex set of practices which try to keep their own statements in circulation and other practices which try to fence them off from others and keep those other statements out of circulation; therefore, they will establish a set of moral principles to safeguard their power against invaders (translators). The author camp considers translation as a potential property of the original text and is not keen on allowing the translators to possess this property free of charge. Those in the author camp expect the translators to compensate their unethical acts by helping them to retain and increase their power through widening the borders of the source text circulation. Therefore, only those translations are permitted by the author camp that explicitly and clearly reveal their relationship with the source of power; i.e. the source text. That is why most of the times literalism and preserving formal correspondence in translation are equated to faithfulness, because in that case, the relationship between ST and TT is explicitly and easily observable, and the translation leads the reader toward the source of power. On the contrary, those translations which do not explicitly indicate their relationship with the original text and efface the trace of the author are labeled as unfaithful and unethical by the author camp. However, I must admit that on many occasions the authors will tolerate, even welcome, the translators manipulations, provided that, they serve the best interest of them:
No author of a best-selling novel will object to the translation becoming bestseller, too. S/he will therefore not object to the translator using means which will make it appealing for the target culture readership. Loyalty, it seems acting in the best interest of ones client which is more a matter of expediency than of ethical standards.
The aforementioned situation is an obvious instance of discourse capitalism which has been vehemently criticized by the post-structuralists and post-colonialists who have strongly questioned the legitimacy of the source authors ownership of the discourse s/he creates. Some of them use the metaphor of gender to criticize moralistic ideology in translation and compare the thirst of the author camp for power to the patterns of paternalism in the human societies. However, what is sharply criticized is the asymmetrical power relation between the original author and the translator and the way in which power is distributed between them which seems to be discriminately in favor of the former.
Certainly, translation is not meant merely to represent the author or resemble the relationship between ST and TT. In my belief, there is no such a thing as transferring or conveying something invariant from one language or culture into another during the process of translation. In fact, the things moralists claim are invariantly transferred from one language into another already exist potentially in the form of the target system inventory of non-verbalized items, and, inspired by the source text, translators are just selecting, highlighting, and, occasionally, modifying these items in the target text through verbalization for a specific purpose.
The Question of Interest: Moral & Acceptable Translations vs. Successful Translation
There is no doubt about this that functionalist approaches provided the theoretical basis to unfetter translators from the chain of the source text and its author by shifting the attention from moral norms to social norms, but much caution should be exercised so that the functionalist ideology do not make the translator a slave again this time of the dominant social norms and do not force them to abide by the social norms blindly. An apparent tendency toward domesticating strategies in translation which is recently seen in many societies may be a result of the blind compliance with the dominant social norms. A functionalist approach often results in an acceptable translation but not necessarily a successful one, because it aims primarily to meet the expectations of the target audience and safeguard their interests.
A translator who adopts a consequentialist ideology aims at producing a successful translation and morality and functional appropriateness do not matter to him unless when the success of his product depends on them. A successful translation is the one which fulfills the predetermined objectives set by the translator to be met. A consequentialist ideology requires the translator to be fully aware of his translational actions and the possible consequences of them. To this end, however, he should know the dominant moral and social norms and always be one step ahead of them. In the consequentialist ideology the focus of attention is not on the source text and its author, nor on requirements of the target audience, but on the translators themselves and their objectives to safeguard their interests. Such an approach allows the translators to violate the norms whenever it deemed necessary.
Ideological Norms and Translational Behavior: A Speculative Typology
With regard to the aforementioned discussion, it seems interesting to find out how ideological norms create variety in translational behavior of different translators. Regarding their state of consciousness, translators may show one of the following behaviors:
Normative behavior: A translator who has a normative behavior almost automatically and subconsciously performs translational actions that are often in conformity with the prevalent norms of his society. He is not aware of the consequences of his translational actions and just blindly follows the dominant norms.
Norm-governed behavior: A translator who has a norm-governed behavior is fully aware of the normative power of the norms, so that almost always consciously behaves in total compliance with the prevalent norms in order to dodge the possible punishments considered for violating them. The degree of conformity with the norms is considerably high, compared to a translator who has a normative behavior. You can rarely, if ever, find instances of violating the norms in the final production of a translator who has such kind of behavior.
Deliberate behavior: A translator, who has a deliberate behavior, though completely aware of the norms and conventions, is bold enough to violate any norm, whenever necessary, to achieve his predetermined objectives; therefore, the instances of purposeful norm breaking may frequently be seen in his translation. It should anyhow be noted that the decisions made by such a translator in many instances may be in accordance with dominant norms and conventions, but they could not claimed to be normative or norm-governed, because these decisions are made consciously and at the same time deliberately, not randomly or by obligation.
Aunes Oversettelser AS has been in the business for 26 years, and we are specialized in technical translations. We are specializing in the Nordic languages, and can offer services into Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Norwegian and Icelandic. The premier translation agency for Norway and the Nordic region! Technical translation services for businesses in the Nordic countries and translation agencies world-wide.
If we were to sample the characteristics being considered as characteristics of good translation in most of the academic institutions of translation pedagogy, we would most probably find out that accuracy, adherence to the source text form and source authors style and intention, in a word loyalty and faithfulness to ST and ST author are among the first and most important criteria often mentioned for evaluating a translation. The above-mentioned criteria seem to be first and foremost moral values in the ideological system of those who believe in them; in other words, the ideology behind such kind of approach to translation could be called a moralistic Ideology.
Moralism in Translation Theories
A moralistic approach towards translation introduces ST authors as the legitimate owner of their textual creations. In this view translator is seen as a person who trespass the exclusive realm of the original writers, trying to share in their power and property. The act of translation is considered to be unethical in a moralistic ideology, often stigmatized as in the Penetration stage of Steiners hermeneutics as an aggressive act comparable to robbery and plundering. If we see ideology as a vehicle to promote or legitimate interests of a particular social group, then a moralistic ideology in translation seeks to safeguard the interests of those in the author camp. Those who are in the author camp know that retaining power in a discursive environment requires a complex set of practices which try to keep their own statements in circulation and other practices which try to fence them off from others and keep those other statements out of circulation; therefore, they will establish a set of moral principles to safeguard their power against invaders (translators). The author camp considers translation as a potential property of the original text and is not keen on allowing the translators to possess this property free of charge. Those in the author camp expect the translators to compensate their unethical acts by helping them to retain and increase their power through widening the borders of the source text circulation. Therefore, only those translations are permitted by the author camp that explicitly and clearly reveal their relationship with the source of power; i.e. the source text. That is why most of the times literalism and preserving formal correspondence in translation are equated to faithfulness, because in that case, the relationship between ST and TT is explicitly and easily observable, and the translation leads the reader toward the source of power. On the contrary, those translations which do not explicitly indicate their relationship with the original text and efface the trace of the author are labeled as unfaithful and unethical by the author camp. However, I must admit that on many occasions the authors will tolerate, even welcome, the translators manipulations, provided that, they serve the best interest of them:
No author of a best-selling novel will object to the translation becoming bestseller, too. S/he will therefore not object to the translator using means which will make it appealing for the target culture readership. Loyalty, it seems acting in the best interest of ones client which is more a matter of expediency than of ethical standards.
The aforementioned situation is an obvious instance of discourse capitalism which has been vehemently criticized by the post-structuralists and post-colonialists who have strongly questioned the legitimacy of the source authors ownership of the discourse s/he creates. Some of them use the metaphor of gender to criticize moralistic ideology in translation and compare the thirst of the author camp for power to the patterns of paternalism in the human societies. However, what is sharply criticized is the asymmetrical power relation between the original author and the translator and the way in which power is distributed between them which seems to be discriminately in favor of the former.
Certainly, translation is not meant merely to represent the author or resemble the relationship between ST and TT. In my belief, there is no such a thing as transferring or conveying something invariant from one language or culture into another during the process of translation. In fact, the things moralists claim are invariantly transferred from one language into another already exist potentially in the form of the target system inventory of non-verbalized items, and, inspired by the source text, translators are just selecting, highlighting, and, occasionally, modifying these items in the target text through verbalization for a specific purpose.
The Question of Interest: Moral & Acceptable Translations vs. Successful Translation
There is no doubt about this that functionalist approaches provided the theoretical basis to unfetter translators from the chain of the source text and its author by shifting the attention from moral norms to social norms, but much caution should be exercised so that the functionalist ideology do not make the translator a slave again this time of the dominant social norms and do not force them to abide by the social norms blindly. An apparent tendency toward domesticating strategies in translation which is recently seen in many societies may be a result of the blind compliance with the dominant social norms. A functionalist approach often results in an acceptable translation but not necessarily a successful one, because it aims primarily to meet the expectations of the target audience and safeguard their interests.
A translator who adopts a consequentialist ideology aims at producing a successful translation and morality and functional appropriateness do not matter to him unless when the success of his product depends on them. A successful translation is the one which fulfills the predetermined objectives set by the translator to be met. A consequentialist ideology requires the translator to be fully aware of his translational actions and the possible consequences of them. To this end, however, he should know the dominant moral and social norms and always be one step ahead of them. In the consequentialist ideology the focus of attention is not on the source text and its author, nor on requirements of the target audience, but on the translators themselves and their objectives to safeguard their interests. Such an approach allows the translators to violate the norms whenever it deemed necessary.
Ideological Norms and Translational Behavior: A Speculative Typology
With regard to the aforementioned discussion, it seems interesting to find out how ideological norms create variety in translational behavior of different translators. Regarding their state of consciousness, translators may show one of the following behaviors:
Normative behavior: A translator who has a normative behavior almost automatically and subconsciously performs translational actions that are often in conformity with the prevalent norms of his society. He is not aware of the consequences of his translational actions and just blindly follows the dominant norms.
Norm-governed behavior: A translator who has a norm-governed behavior is fully aware of the normative power of the norms, so that almost always consciously behaves in total compliance with the prevalent norms in order to dodge the possible punishments considered for violating them. The degree of conformity with the norms is considerably high, compared to a translator who has a normative behavior. You can rarely, if ever, find instances of violating the norms in the final production of a translator who has such kind of behavior.
Deliberate behavior: A translator, who has a deliberate behavior, though completely aware of the norms and conventions, is bold enough to violate any norm, whenever necessary, to achieve his predetermined objectives; therefore, the instances of purposeful norm breaking may frequently be seen in his translation. It should anyhow be noted that the decisions made by such a translator in many instances may be in accordance with dominant norms and conventions, but they could not claimed to be normative or norm-governed, because these decisions are made consciously and at the same time deliberately, not randomly or by obligation.
Aunes Oversettelser AS has been in the business for 26 years, and we are specialized in technical translations. We are specializing in the Nordic languages, and can offer services into Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Norwegian and Icelandic. The premier translation agency for Norway and the Nordic region! Technical translation services for businesses in the Nordic countries and translation agencies world-wide.
Source...