Significance of Translation

Literature has the ability to connect people in a society and can often transcend barriers such as class, race, and gender. This is to say that a high school student in the East Hamptons will be reading the same version of Romeo and Juliet as the student from south central Los Angeles. This positive effect on intra-cultural relations, however, is supplemented with an unfortunate byproduct, intercultural polarization. Writings can often not overcome the cultural barrier. The main catalyst for this byproduct is language. It becomes more difficult to appreciate and relate to works that are originally written in a different language and have to be translated. This is not only because there are competing ideas of an ideal translation, but because syntax and grammar can add a lot to a poem or novel but is lost in a different language or culture.

Different styles of translation are used by notable polylingual authors and there is not one style that seems to currently dominant or preferred, but for many years a direct, literal translation was customary. Vladimir Nabokov, a famous polylingual author, was a strong advocate for this style.  According to his article, “The Art of Translation,” the most wicked thing a translator can do is  “conform to the notions and prejudices of a given public.” He argued that indirect translations lead to interpretations losing their meaning and can cause confusion. Nabokov offers Hamlet as an example. In the play, Ophelia gathered weeds and garlands but in the Russian translation these weeds and garlands were portrayed as rich flowers like lilies and roses. According to Nabokov, this ruins an important aspect of Ophelia’s character, which is coarseness, because assorting rich flowers give her a certain “gentility.”

A competing view is held by the Nobel Prize winning polylingual poet, Octavio Paz. He posits that a successful translation is made “if the poet/translator can reproduce the position of the words, poetic context, where they fit.” An easy example to consider is the use of metaphors like “it’s raining cats and dogs” or “Близо́к локото́к, да не уку́сишь.” A literal translation of these would be confusing and the metaphor would lose its meaning.

To determine the best style of translation, we must consider what makes literature successful and the intrinsic value of language. Literature is an art that requires interpretation in order to be a strong work. Subsequently, context is a necessary aspect of interpreting a text. Context, however, is a sociocultural concept that could be lost when translating language, especially when it is a reference to canonical works or a concept that is metaphorical. Take, for example, a famous quote in which the syntax is essential, “Let them eat cake.” One could imagine a scenario in which a character says this line and the author’s intention is to compare Marie-Antoinette’s ignorance with the character’s. In a literal translation, much like any cultural metaphor, the idea would not be transferred and an author’s attempt at being interpreted is lost. The solution to this problem, then, is a translation that serves as a tool to frame the interpretation or provide context to a reader if it is lost.

A more subtle effect that language has on the reading is known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This is the idea that, because our thought process is limited by language we could think in, knowing a different language will limit you to a certain style of thinking. This means that there are inherent differences in books that are written in different languages. What this really suggests is that there is often no direct translation between words of a different language and to actually describe the idea that the author is trying to convey. This line of reasoning also prefers a translation that is a guide rather than one that simply knows both languages.

An issue we may run into, as Nabokov expressed as his argument for literal translation, is that if we decide to let the translator unravel the message into his own interpretation, the result may be inconsistent with another translator or even inconsistent with a reverse translation. One could even expect a completely new novel after a couple processes of reverse translation. While this idea has some merit, there is never really a case when a translation of a translation should be used and all it really proves is that translation is an art in itself that could be good or bad, like all art. We can deduce that the argument for direct or literal translation is in fact just one for quality translators.

We can conclude that the art that is inherent in reading is better served by a translation that can sustain the author’s meaning but also preserve the framework for the interpretation. Literal translation does not fulfill this need as gets rid of the context, syntax, and metaphors of a given work. The significance in this is that the final barrier which literature has yet to cross, social culture, if a translator can make a successful reproduction, and serving as a guide to the language is the first step to completing this.