1.3.2. Translation as Decision Making
As already explained, a large number of translation problems
result from the incompatibility between the source and the target communities.
The translator is thus bound to constantly take decisions on how to deal with
each problem, and what to choose from the multitude of approaches and
alternatives.
A first decision to be made might be to choose the method of
translation. This issue has always been a debate among translators and
translation theorists (Hatim and Mason, 1991). As early as 1813, Schleiermacher
has discussed this issue, and came out with what he calls two "authentic"
methods of translating:
"Ou bien le traducteur laisse l'écrivain le plus
tranquille possible et fait que le lecteur aille à sa rencontre, ou bien
il laisse le lecteur le plus tranquille possible et fait que l'écrivain
aille à sa rencontre."
(p. 49)
(see translation 13, Appendix B)
In the second choice, he explains, the translator does as if
the writer originally produced the text in the target language. This method
neglects the close relationship between the writer's original culture and
original
language. Whereas in the first choice, which he considers the
only "correct", the translator does as if the target reader reads the source
language. By so doing, the source culture is conserved and the "foreign"
character of the text is preserved. To Schleiermacher (1813), a text's foreign
character is very important to preserve. It makes up the value of the text and
guarantees a better communication and understanding between cultures.
Furthermore, it develops the peoples' open-mindedness and transmits knowledge
and authentic thought (Schleiermacher, 1813). This is also defended by Mounin
(1962) in his article "Le traducteur entre les mots et les choses" in the
following words:
"Tout le travail du Traducteur à son point le plus
élevé de difficulté, c'est justement d'essayer de donner
à ses lecteurs une idée des choses inaccessibles dont parle un
texte en langue étrangère, qui se réfère à
une culture souvent étrangère, soit en partie, soit en
totalité."
( p.50)
(see translation 14, Appendix B)
Although Schleiermacher (1813) does not set practical
principles to his theory's application, it seems as an earlier framework of a
more recent theory. It is the distinction made by Nida (1964) between
formai
equivalence and dynamic equivalence. The
former's purpose is to be as faithful as possible to the source text's both
form and content. It thus provides the target reader with some degree of
insight into the lexical and structural form of the source text. And most
importantly, it lets the target reader, as Nida (1964) puts it, "understand
as much as he can of the customs, manner of thought, and means of expression"
of the source culture (p. 129). Dynamic equivalence, on the other hand,
seeks an equivalent effect on the target reader. It follows that features of
the source culture be of secondary importance in favour of the fulfilment of
the ST's function, and the production of an equivalent effect.
A similar problem emerges when translating old texts. Indeed,
it entails one choice out of two. The first is keeping old concepts as they are
with explanatory footnotes, for instance. The second is rendering them in a
modern way accessible to the modern reader. The first orientation is
text-centered, the second, reader-centered (Hatim and Mason,
1991, p. 16). To these orientations may be added the author-centered
one, which takes into consideration the author's biography and personality
in text interpretation (ibid.).
Another question is "Do I have to bother the target reader
with all these strange things that he may not understand nor be interested in?"
(James, 2002, §2) As Kate James (2002) formulates it, when discussing
the cultural issue:
"The translator [...] has to decide on the importance given to
certain cultural aspects to what extent it is necessary or desirable to
translate them into the TL."
(§ 2)
It is difficult to say who has the right to decide on this
question? This issue, as well, is related to the controversy opposing
text-centered to reader-centered orientations, or formai to dynamic
approaches.
Although a decision within a translation act belongs always to
the translator, it should, in fact, be the result of a thorough study of all
the relevant factors. As expressed by Hatim and Mason (1991):
"In fact, the beginning of a solution to the problem will
depend, to borrow a well-known sociolinguistic formula, on: who is translating
what, for whom, when, where, why and in what circumstances?"
(p.6)
The problem lies in the possible conflict between these
factors. However,
translator's orientation. Hatim and Mason (1991) suggest an
interesting conclusion.
"Given that, in any case, translating involves a conflict of
interests, it is all a question of where one's priorities
lie."
(p. 17) The answers to the mentioned wh-questions are precious
keys to establish the priorities of each individual translation, and hence to
guide the translator's choice. An accurate assessment of the situation is,
therefore, a must as well as a source of solutions to translation problems.
| 
