Translation Universals.pdf - ymerleksi - home

Beyond the particular 35
6. A translation should possess the style of the translation.
7. A translation should read as a contemporary of the original.
8. A translation should read as a contemporary of the translation.
9. A translation may add to or omit from the original.
10.Atranslationmayneveraddtooromitfromtheoriginal.
11. A translation of verse should be in prose.
12. A translation of verse should be in verse.
Problem: overgeneralization (neglect of differences). The weakness of this
routeisofcoursethatnoaccountisheretakenofthefactthattranslations
arenotallofakind:someprescriptiveprinciplesmaybevalidforsometypes
of translation (or types of text) and other principles for other types. As soon as
this is realized, the need arises for a translation typology.
Perhaps the first attempt to make such a typology was that of Jerome, who
claimed as follows:
Jerome (De optimo genere interpretandi, 395)
Translations of sacred texts must be literal, word-for-word (because even
the word order of the original is a holy mystery and the translator cannot
risk heresy).
Translations of other kinds of texts should be done sense-for-sense, more
freely (because a literal translation would often sound absurd).
Problem: fallacy of converse accident. This is the fallacy of generalizing from
a non-typical particular. Here again, differences are neglected. What we find
is that statements based on translating a particular kind of text, such as a
literary text or the Bible, are assumed to hold good for all kinds of texts – and
indeed all kinds of translations. Traces of this fallacy are to be found in quite
recent publications on translation theory. A well-known anthology of essays
that came out in 1992 was entitled “Theories of Translation” (edited by Schulte
and Biguenet). Most of the essays are indeed classics. But all except two deal
exclusively with literary translation. The impression is given that translation
theory can be more or less equated with literary translation theory – as if
literary translation was typical of all translation. A similar impression is given
by Venuti’s recent collection of readings (2000), the great majority of which
concern literary translation.
Problem: idealization. By this I mean the evident underlying belief in perfection,
in a perfect translation that would be absolutely equivalent and also ab-