Shaimaa Suleiman November 6, 2013

One must not imagine that the process of translation can avoid a certain degree of interpretation.
Eugene Nida, !rinciples of "orrespondence
#hese $ords appear at the outset of Eugene Nida%s !rinciples of "orrespondence , a seminal essa& and a famous theoretical statement on the problem of e'uivalence in translation( Nida e)plains that absolute correspondence or e'uivalence comes across as a m&th in the field of translation* the inherent and inevitable discrepanc& bet$een language pairs ma+es it an insurmountable difficult& for translators to render target te)ts that are e)act copies of the original, thus allo$ing for %a certain degree of interpretation%( ,o$ever, be&ond the e)haustive debates of linguistic e'uivalence that no$ seem parochial, the possibilit& of interpretation raises t$o 'uestions* What are the non-linguistic factors that motivate interpretation of the ST? -nd how much interpretation is too much? #hese are 'uestions that have informed numerous theories and trends at the %cultural turn% in translation studies( #hese theories and trends have concerned themselves $ith anal&.ing the implications of the influence of non/linguistic factors such as culture, ideolog& and po$er relations on the interpretation of S#s in translation( 0n this short reflective essa&, 0 briefl& e)amine one of the trends in cultural translation studies that highlighted the relevance of the lengths translators go to in interpreting S#s in translation1 namel&, -ndre 2efevere%s 314425 vie$ of translation as re$riting( #ranslation, according to 2efevere 314425, is the most obviousl& recogni.able t&pe of re$riting 3p( 45( #he most crucial aspect of translation, he adds, is that it is able to re$rite and manipulate the image of the S#%s author and culture to ma+e it fit into the conventions of the target culture( #he manipulation can be ideological, as in the case of translating the diar& of -nne 6ran+( ,er diar& $as first re/$ritten in the 7utch edition of 1489( "onsiderable passages containing personal details about famil& members and friends, references to her se)ualit& and statements about the emancipation of $omen $ere practicall& omitted, thus leaving the reader $ith a version of -nne 6ran+ far removed from realit&( #he re/$riting $ent too far $hen -nneliese Sch:t.%s ;erman translation of the diar& $as published in 14<0( Sch:t.%s translation manifested a great degree of ideologicall&/driven interpretation of the S#( She either omitted or toned do$n references to se)ualit&, bodil& functions, conditions at the concentration camps and the mutual hatred

Shaimaa Suleiman November 6, 2013

bet$een =e$s and ;erman at that time( Sch:t.%s ideological interpretation of the S# also led her to overloo+ the multilingual passages in the S# involving mi)ed use of 7utch and ;erman so as not to offend the ;erman readers of the ##( #een language $as also completel& eliminated in the translation, $hich further reflects the puritanical attitude of the translator( 7ue to Sch:t.%s e)cessive interpretation, the ;erman ## pro>ects a different, more subdued -nne 6ran+ uprooted from the realit& of her culture and age group to fit into a stereot&pe that e)ists in the mind of the translator( ?hile 2efever believes that Sch:t.%s interpretative behavior in translation constitutes a deliberate distortion of the S#, Sch:t. herself might thin+ of her o$n intervention as a slight interpretation that could not be avoided( #hese conflicted perspectives are $h& statements li+e Nida%s remain relevant( #hat absolute correspondence bet$een te)ts is unattainable is a fact, but the degree of interpretation allo$ed is to be onl& determined b& the purpose of the translation( #herefore, $hile there are factors that motivate interpretation of S#s, there is no absolute $a& of >udging ho$ much interpretation is too much( References 2efevere, -( 314425 Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame, 2ondon and Ne$ @or+* Aoutledge(