Translation Universals.pdf - ymerleksi - home

38 Andrew Chesterman
Problem: assumptions about quality – overgeneralization again. The weakness
of this kind of approach is not so much a failure to develop a translation
typology; rather, it is a very restricted aprioriview of what constitutes an acceptable
translation in the first place. This view is so narrow that a great many
translations are automatically criticized, although they might be perfectly acceptable
according to other criteria than those selected by the critic in question,
e.g. relating to strict formal equivalence or flawless target language. After
all, not all translations need to be perfectly natural TL. (By “natural” here I
mean ‘unmarked’, in the sense that readers typically do not react de dicto, to
the linguistic form itself.) We usually understand the funny menus and notices
– they are often part of the amusement of a holiday, we may even expect
them. And unnatural (marked) language will be less noticed by non-natives
anyway. With respect to the alleged weaknesses of much literary translation,
one can point out that most readers of literary translations may well prefer
a freer, more natural version. The criticism may boil down to no more than
personal preference.
Problem: assumption of the universality of formal stylistic universals. This is
a different kind of problem. The literary critics I referred to above seem to
overlook the fact that a given formal feature (repetition, say) may have quite
different effects on readers in different cultures, where there may be quite
different rhetorical and stylistic norms. These critics thus neglect the possibility
of cultural relativity, in favour of a belief in form for form’s sake, a belief in the
existence, distribution and frequency of formal stylistic universals that have yet
to be demonstrated. Formal equivalence is valued, dynamic equivalence is not.
Problem: socio-cultural effect on translator status. One highly undesirable
effect of these pejorative generalizations is of course the depressing impact it
has on the public perception of the translator’s role, and indeed on translators’
own perception of themselves, as poor creatures doomed to sin.
Contribution: concern with quality. Thesepejorativeviewsdonevertheless
reveal a concern with translation quality, albeit narrowly understood. From this
route away from the particular we learn the need to develop more sophisticated
and varied criteria for assessing translation quality. (For a recent selection of
views on quality assessment, see Schäffner 1998 and the special issue of The
Translator 6 (2), 2000.)