However, this is not a one-sided debate, and a great deal of literature exists presenting the positive aspects of addition. Additions and alterations can allow things to make more sense in translation. One particular example of this is the translation of colloquialisms, idioms and dialect, as certainly the former two are culturally bound {Bassnett, 23}. Alterations are therefore dependent on the function of the phrase, not its linguistic elements {Bassnett, 24}, with transformations, or variants, being those changes that do not modify the core of meaning but rather, influence the expressive form {Bassnett, 27}. Things are often added to compensate for a lack of literal equivalence, or for reasons of artistic licence (e.g. rhythm or metre), which can mostly be viewed as a good thing if one resolves not to result to purism, especially if additions take the form of footnotes in order to clarify ‘culturally untranslatable’ items, as these are not as intrusive as other forms of addition and provide an addition in terms of context.
Certainly grammatical additions and alterations are generally used for mainly positive means, in order to convey a grammatical structure that might not exist in the target language. Returning to the proposed ‘primary aim’ of translation, whereby the source-text should be reflected as accurately as possible in the target language, such additions fit very well into the context of this, and it can be difficult to view additions as being negative, given that the point where beneficial additions become violations of the original work is intensely subjective. Translation certainly has its stake in embellishment and enrichment so that readers can gain the very most from the translation of the original text, and it is the job of the translator to correlate the target language with the ‘possible world’ of the source text. “The only solution,” says Umberto Eco in his Mouse or Rat?, “is to figure out what kind of world the original sentence pictures, and then to see what kind of sentence in the destination language can contribute to the same world-picture in the mind of the reader” {Eco, 48}. Looking at French and English translations of work by the Spanish poet Federico García Lorca, it is clear that the similarities between Western European culture and language mean that the poetry does lend itself to translation in other Western European languages particularly well in this respect. While the languages inevitably lend their own individual qualities to the translations, particularly phonetically when they are read aloud, any concrete additions are minor and are for clarification rather than being detrimental to the poetry as a whole. However, as a non-native speaker of French it is difficult to know if a native speaker of French would view these translations differently.
This raises the question of whether, if ‘too many’ additions or losses are made, this is reflective on the translation itself, on the source text, or whether this is an inherent fault or flaw of the translator themselves. It is in all likelihood a combination of factors – while I consider the Lorca translations to be ‘good’, this is probably not only due to the translators’ dexterity but also due to the ease with which Western European languages relate to one another and the repetitive nature of many of Lorca’s poems. The sense of ‘goodness’ and ‘badness’ and ‘fidelity’ and ‘betrayal’ in the sense of translation is also of course subjective – while I like the translations of Lorca’s poetry that I have found, others may (and are entitled to) disagree with this assertion.
While many positives can be found in the nature of addition in translation, though, there is also a whole host of negatives, articulated particularly strongly by André Lefevere, who is something of a purist, in his 1975 work, Translating Poetry. He claims that improvements to texts are often made in order to make literal translations more literary, but that attempts at improving the text can lead to a ‘consciously literary’ attitude on the part of the translator and that the result can read like a parody of the current literary style in the target language {31-2}. Although ‘literary improvement’ on literal translations is required to an extent, I agree that when this is taken to extremes the result can be somewhat ridiculous at worst and disappointing at best. The translator E. V. Rieu probably thought he was making ‘literary improvements’ when he carried out his translation of Homer’s Odyssey. However, the main source of detraction from the original text not only lies in the fact that it is a translation from an ancient to a modern language, but also in the fact that it is a translation between media (i.e., epic poetry to prose). It is my view that such a leap in terms of format takes the translation too far from the original, and that Richmond Lattimore’s verse translations are far more favourable. Such an ‘addition’, in terms of the changing of the source text format entirely, can give some insight into the negativity associated with additions, which while being perhaps less common than losses, could potentially have more devastating effects on a text (although this is of course subjective).
Other problems with the notion of addition to translated forms of texts soon become abundantly clear. Possible interpretations of a phrase can be eliminated by way of over-embellishment, such as choosing a more specific lexical item where the original author has chosen a relatively vague one, thus eradicating elements of ambiguity and openness (one example lies in Gilles de Sezes’ translation of John Donne’s poem “The Relic”, where the opening line “when my grave is broke up again” is translated “quand au-dessus, mon tombeau fut à nouveau descellé”. The verb ‘desceller’ means ‘to pull free’, ‘unseal’ or ‘pull up’ and thus adds new implications and takes away some ambiguity from Donne’s original English phrase, while ‘au-dessus’ – above – adds emphasis that was also not originally there). These are strange additions as they only serve to lengthen the line, and there is only a vague half-rhyme with the word on which the next line ends in the French translation (‘traiter’). Additions in terms of improvement on style therefore might sometimes be literarily an improvement, but can lose respect for the original text. Padding, as already pointed out by virtue of the Donne/de Sezes example, also increases verbosity.
A further problem with additions, which doesn’t occur in the Donne translation (thankfully, de Sezes appears to have gone out of his way to avoid this particular occurrence), lies with applications of modern vocabulary and linguistic devices (either in poetry or prose), which can be at odds with the original period in which the text was written (i.e., be anachronistic). Expansion can also lead to paraphrase, which can travel even further away from the source text {Lefevere, 57-8}. These views are all fairly damning of additions in translation.
Lefevere theorises that distortion takes place on several levels: morphological distortion, distortion of sense and communicative value, distortion of syntax, and distortion of structure. In the first form of distortion, words in the target translation are truncated or deliberately used in their archaic forms, and in the second, excessive use of archaisms, etymologisms, circumlocutions, ready-made utterances and tautologies is made, whereby structurally important connotations are often missed and the source text is misrepresented. Distortion of syntax, either through the superimposition of source language syntactic patterns on the target language, or through use of function words, modifiers, interjections, and unconnected stopgaps, is also viewed as a negative use of additions by Lefevere. Finally, the distortion of structure, through the addition or omission of structural features and the use of modulation and topicalisation also results in some form of debasement of the original text. In all cases, says Lefevere, the resulting target translations singularly fail to qualify as literary translations, and that translations which both can exist as literary works of art in their own right and can give the reader an accurate impression of what the source text is like {95}. While this is quite an extreme point of view, damning any form of addition as something that automatically renders a translation invalid, there is perhaps a grain of truth in it – fundamental alterations can take the reader away from the original source text quite irreparably. However, these pronouncements again only apply to extreme cases of translation gone wrong, rather than to additions in translations as a whole.
Lefevere’s views, while to an extent accurate, do tend to express the views of extreme purists alone, and it is perhaps fair to say that most translators are more moderate in their work, allowing flexibility while at the same time knowing how to exercise self-control and maintain a significant degree of fidelity. Any negatives attached to additions do seem to be related to fidelity, which is a quite philosophical and subjective entity in itself. It is also worth bearing in mind that translations, and the effects of losses and gains upon them, can only be judged by those people who are multilingual – those who are monolingual have no point of comparison and can only take what is available.
It is possible that additions arise as much from the immense pressure on translators to somehow create perfection in their finished product (as demonstrated by Kathy Mezei in her article, Speaking White, where she states that in translating something, “one is inevitably creating and not just translating meaning”) as they do from wilful ‘interference’. Replacing ‘culturally untranslatable’ terms with more familiar terms, for example, does in my view at least encroach rather too much on respect for the original texts, and further exacerbates a problem that could be more easily solved by a different form of addition, such as explanatory footnotes.
While notions of fidelity should still be taken into account, the positives of addition seem to far outweigh the negatives, and this balance can be maintained as long as translators do not resort to extremes. Maintaining this balance is important, as ignoring any problems that arise is just as bad as overcompensation for them. As long as the ‘core of meaning’ is not neglected (which it can be, as it can produce shifts of meaning and responsibility, as in Smithers’ 1884 translation of Catullus 64 – Theseus goes from being blinded to self-blinded {Lefevere 45}, therefore demonstrating how overenthusiasm can lead to inaccuracy), additions can be considered acceptable and even at times beneficial to the reader, rather than being automatically considered problematic. Semantic equivalence takes priority over syntactic equivalence {Bassnett, 27}, and in line with this, a boundary must be drawn between necessary and unnecessary additions, which can be more easily controlled than losses.
Works cited
- Bassnett, S., Translation Studies, Routledge, 1991 (revised edition)
- Eco, U., Mouse or Rat?: Translation as Negotiation, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 2003
- Lefevere, A., Translating Poetry: Seven Strategies and a Blueprint, Koninklijke Van Gorcum & Comp. B. V., Assen, The Netherlands, 1975
- Mezei, K., “Speaking White: Literary Translation as a Vehicle of Assimilation in Quebec”, in Simon, S. (ed), Culture in Transit: Translating the Literature of Quebec, Véhicule Press, Montréal, pp. 133-148, 1995
- , for the Lorca and Donne translations, translated into English and French by a number of translators
Works consulted
- Bell, R. T., Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice, Longman, 1991
- Catford, J. C., A Linguistic Theory of Translation, Oxford University Press, 1965
- Jakobson, R., “On linguistic aspects of translation”, in Brower, R. A., On Translation, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 232-9, 1959
- Robinson, D., “Nine Theses About Anecdotalism in the Study of Translation,” June 1999, Meta 44:2, pp. 402-8, , retrieved 07/05/08
- Robinson, D., “22 Theses on the Study of Translation,” June 1998, Journal of Translation Studies, 2, pp. 92-117, , retrieved 09/05/08
