1

LECTURE 2 TRANSLATION STRATEGIES

Roman Jakobson makes the crucial claim that “all cognitive experience and
its classification is conveyable in any existing language” (Jakobson 1959: 238).
So, to give an example, while modern British English concepts such as the
National Health Service, public-private partnership and congestion charging, or, in
the USA, Ivy League universities, Homeland Security and speed dating, might not
exist in a different culture, that should not stop them being expressed in some way
in the target language (TL). Jakobson goes on to claim that only poetry “by
definition is untranslatable” since in verse the form of words contributes to the
construction of the meaning of the text. Such statements express a classical
dichotomy in translation between sense/content on the one hand and form/style on
the other.
sense form
content style
The sense may be translated, while the form often cannot. And the point
where form begins to contribute to sense is where we approach
untranslatability. This clearly is most likely to be in poetry, song, advertising,
punning and so on, where sound and rhyme and double meaning are unlikely
to be recreated in the TL.
The spoken or written form of names in the Harry Potter books often
contributes to their meaning. In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, one of
the evil characters goes by the name of Tom Marvolo Riddle, yet this name is itself
a riddle, since it is an anagram of “I am Lord Voldemort” and reveals the
character’s true identity.
In the published translations, many of the Harry Potter translators have
resorted to altering the original name in order to create the required pun. The
split between form and content is linked in many ways to the major polar split
which has marked the history of western translation theory for two thousand years,
between two ways of translating: literal and free. The origin of this separation is to
 2
be found in two of the most-quoted names in translation theory, the Roman lawyer
and writer Cicero and St Jerome, who translated the Greek Septuagint gospels into
Latin in the fourth century. In Classical times, it was normal for translators
working from Greek to provide a literal, word-for-word translation which would
serve as an aid to the Latin reader who, it could be assumed, was reasonably
acquainted with the Greek source language.
Four centuries later, St Jerome described his Bible translation strategy as “I
render not word-for-word but sense for sense” (Jerome 395/1997:25). This
approach was of particular importance for the translation of such sensitive texts as
the Bible, deemed by many to be the repository of truth and the word of God. A
translator who did not remain ‘true’ to the ‘official’ interpretation of that word
often ran a considerable risk. Sometimes, as in the case of the sixteenth-century
English Bible translator William Tyndale, it was the mere act of translation into the
vernacular that led to persecution and execution.
The literal and free translation strategies can still be seen in texts to the
present day. Such a literal translation is not so common when the languages in
question are more distant. Or, to put it another way, the term ‘literal’ has tended to
be used with a different focus, sometimes to denote a TT which is overly close or
influenced by the ST or SL. The result is what is sometimes known as
translationese − A pejorative general term for the language of translation. It is
often used to indicate a stilted form of the TL from calquing ST lexical or syntactic
patterning (Duff 1981). Translationese is related to translation universals since the
characteristics mentioned above may be due to common translation phenomena
such as interference, explicitation and domestication. Newmark (2003: 96) uses
another term, translatorese, to mean the automatic choice of the most common
“dictionary” translation of a word where, in context, a less frequent alternative
would be more appropriate.
To illustrate this, let us consider some typical examples of translated
material (the English TTs of Arabic STs) which seem to defy comprehension:
“Honorable Benefactor After Greetings, […] The organization hopefully appeals
 3
to you, whether nationals or expatriates in this generous country, to extend a
helping hand… We have the honour to offer you the chance to contribute to our
programs and projects from your monies and alms so that God may bless you.
[…]”
In this example of what in English would be a fund-raising text, confusion
sets in when “making a donation” is seen as an honour bestowed both on the donor
and on those making the appeal. There is a certain opaqueness and far too much
power for a text of this kind to function properly in English.
In a way, this is not different from the advert for a French wine purchasing
company which, instead of simply saying “Now you too can take advantage of this
wonderful opportunity” (Fawcett 1997: 62), actually had: “Today, we offer you to
share this position”.
In all these examples, the influence of poor literal translation is all too
obvious. In this respect, perhaps no field has been more challenging to
translators than advertising. Consider this advert promoting cash dispensing
services:
“The Telebanking System
X Bank presents the banking services by phone. The Telebanking System
welcomes you by the Islamic greeting “assalamu 'alaykum”, completes your
inquiries/transactions within few seconds and sees you off saying “fi aman allah”.
Not surprisingly, this publicity material was withdrawn since the advertising
gimmick obviously did not work on a population consisting mostly of expatriates
with little or no Arabic to appreciate the nuance. The advert has more recently
reappeared simply stating:
“X Islamic Bank, the first Islamic Bank in the world, is pleased to offer you
a sophisticated service through Automated Teller Machine Cash Card”.
The concept of literalness that emerges from these examples is one of
exaggeratedly close adherence on the part of the translator to the lexical and
syntactic properties of the ST. Yet, once again, the literal-free divide is not so
much a pair of fixed opposites as a cline:
 4
literal free
Different parts of a text may be positioned at different points on the cline,
while other variables, as we shall see in the coming units, are text type, audience,
purpose as well as the general translation strategy of the translator.

2.1 Comprehensibility and Translatability

Such literal translations often fail to take account of one simple fact of
language and translation, namely that not all texts or text users are the same. Not
all texts are as ‘serious’ as the Bible or the works of Dickens, nor are they all as
‘pragmatic’ as marriage certificates or instructions on a medicine bottle. Similarly,
not all text receivers are as intellectually rigorous or culturally aware as those
who read the Bible or Dickens, nor are they all as ‘utilitarian’ as those who simply
use translation as a means of getting things done. Ignoring such factors as text
type, audience or purpose of translation has invariably led to the rather
pedantic form of literalism, turgid adherence to form and almost total
obsession with accuracy often encountered in the translations we see or hear
day in day out. We have all come across translations where the vocabulary of a
given language may well be recognizable and the grammar intact, but the
sense is quite lacking.
On the other hand, the example from the packaging describing the
components of a food processor, is an example of a much freer translation:
French
Couvercle et cuves en polycarbonate. Matériau haute résistance utilisé pour
les hublots d'avion. Résiste à de hautes températures et aux chocs. Tableau de
commandes simple et fonctionnel. 3 commandes suffisent à maîtriser Compact
3100.
[Lid and bowls in polycarbonate. High resistance material used for aircraft
windows. Resists high temperatures and shocks. Simple and functional control
panel. 3 controls suffice to master Compact 3100.]
English
 5
Workbowls and lid are made from polycarbonate, the same substance as the
windows of Concorde. It's shatterproof, and won't melt with boiling liquids or
crack under pressure. Technically advanced, simple to use : just on, off or pulse.
The problem with many published TTs of the kind cited earlier is essentially
one of impaired ‘comprehensibility’, an issue closely related to ‘translatability’.
Translatability is a relative notion and has to do with the extent to which,
despite obvious differences in linguistic structure (grammar, vocabulary, etc.),
meaning can still be adequately expressed across languages.
But, for this to be possible, meaning has to be understood not only in terms
of what the ST contains, but also and equally significantly, in terms of such
factors as 1) communicative purpose, 2) target audience and 3) purpose of
translation. This must go hand in hand with the recognition that, while there will
always be entire chunks of experience and some unique ST values that will simply
defeat our best efforts to convey them across cultural and linguistic boundaries,
translation is always possible and cultural gaps are in one way or another
bridgeable. To achieve this, an important criterion to heed must be TT
comprehensibility. Everything is translatable to a certain extent.