c
c




 

 

?
??
? 

Abstract

The present article deals firstly with some theoretical reflections about the
translational process and the various approaches to verge on texts to be translated.
Then, a sequential work procedure carried out with undergraduate translation
students is described. This methodology, consisting of a step-by-step, either
sequential or successive procedure for workshops, which has proven quite
successful in translator training at an undergraduate level. The educator is
understood as a facilitator of the translation task: The lion's share of the transfer
process is accomplished by the students both collectively and individually. The
methodology proposed and the corresponding evaluation process are discussed,
and the human profiles and the work facilities are defined. All the aspects
presented and analyzed here respond to empirical matters.

x

very translation activity has one or more specific purposes and whichever they may be, the
main aim of translation is to serve as a cross-cultural bilingual communication vehicle
among peoples. In the past few decades, this activity has developed because of rising
international trade, increased migration, globalization, the recognition of linguistic minorities,
and the expansion of the mass media and technology. For this reason, the translator plays an
important role as a bilingual or multi-lingual cross-cultural transmitter of culture and truths by
attempting to interpret concepts and speech in a variety of texts as faithfully and accurately as
possible.

Most translation theorists agree that translation is understood as a transfer process from a foreign
language²or a second language²to the mother tongue. However, market requirements are
increasingly demanding that translators transfer texts to a target language that is not their mother
tongue, but a foreign language. This is what Newmark calls "service translation."
"I? ? ?

?
?
????
?
 
?
?
??
? 
? ? ?

? ?
?
?
?
??
 
?

?

?
?
??
 ?I?
??
?
 
 ??
 
?

??
??" Newmark (1995b).
 This fact makes the translating process a harder task, sometimes
There is always a resulting in a mediocre output that should undoubtedly be revised
way of and post-edited before delivery to the client.

approaching an Through experience I have learned that the consequences of wrong

translations can be catastrophic²especially if done by
SL text, whether laypersons²and mistakes made in the performance of this activity
the translator can obviously be irreparable. Just think of what could happen in
chooses the cases of serious inadequacy in knowledge areas such as science,
medicine, legal matters, or technology. There must be thousands
author-centered of examples, but I find this anecdote worth mentioning here: Lily,
a Chilean exile who had been granted refugee status in a non-
traditional model, Spanish-speaking country, was going to undergo surgery for the
the text-centered simple removal of a skin blemish from her face. However, because
structuralistic of a misunderstanding by the translator on duty in the hospital at
the moment she was going to be anesthetized, she was about to
model or the undergo breast surgery!
cognitive reader- It is quite clear that a poor translation can not only lead to hilarity
centered model. or to minor confusion, but it can also be a matter of life and death.
Hence the importance of training translators, not only in the
acquisition and command of languages and translation strategies and procedures, but also in
specific knowledge areas and, what is equally important, in professional ethics.

If translating is a discourse operation interposing between language and thought (Delisle, 1980),
we should accept that in the art or skill of translating we are inexorably going to come across
assorted and numerous obstacles. Delisle (1981) illustrates what a subtle form of torture
translation is:
c 
? ?? ? ?

?
 ?
?
?
???

?? ?
?

 ? 
? ????   ??

? ?

??


?
There are many thorns that can mortify us during the translation process, whatever the nature of
the text we face, and translators should be aware of them. The first problem is related to reading
and comprehension ability in the source language. Once the translator has coped with this
obstacle, the most frequent translation difficulties are of a semantic and cultural nature (Tricás,
1995): "Linguistic untranslatability" (cognates, i.e. true and false friends, calque, and other forms
of interference; institutional and standardized terms, neologisms, aphorisms, etc.), and "cultural
untranslatability," (idioms, sayings, proverbs, jokes, puns, etc.). One should adopt a very
cautious attitude toward these words or expressions so as to avoid interference and/or language
misuse (Kussmaul, 1995).

Similarly, we quite often run into those painful "not found" terms, for which not even the best
dictionary, an expert in the topic or a native speaker of the source language can provide us with a
solution to convey an accurate meaning. We should always bear in mind that one of the greatest
virtues of a good translator is what I have called "contextualized intuition," i.e. the ability to find
the nearest common sense interpretation of the "not found" element within its context.
Whatever the difficulty in the translation process, procedures must aim at the essence of the
message and faithfulness to the meaning of the source language text being transferred to the
target language text. In the words of Nida and Taber (1974):
c 
? 
????
?

??
?
? 
?

?
? ??
? ???
?
???
? 
? 
?
??
? ???
?


? 

To a great extent, the quality of translation will depend on the quality of the translator, i.e. on
her/his knowledge, skills, training, cultural background, expertise, and even mood! Newmark
(1995b) distinguishes some essential characteristics that any good translator should have:

ñ? ÿeading comprehension ability in a foreign language

ñ? Knowledge of the subject

ñ? Sensitivity to language (both mother tongue and foreign language)

ñ? Competence to write the target language dexterously, clearly, economically and

resourcefully

In addition, Mercedes Tricás refers to 


, or common sense as the most common of all
senses; in other words, making use of

? 
?  , a combination of intelligence, sensitivity
and intuition. This phenomenon works very well if handled cautiously:

?
 ? ? ??
???? ???
??
?? ???! ?

?

?

?? ?
(Tricás, 1995"
Apart from the previously mentioned aspects, it is relevant to emphasize the necessity for sound
linguistic knowledge of both the SL and the TL, an essential condition, yet not the only one, to
begin swimming up the streams of professional translation. However, neither knowing languages
nor being efficiently bilingual is enough to become a translator.

For more than twenty years, translation theorists have been pointing this out, and yet many
people believe and claim that knowing two or more languages is identical to knowing how to
translate properly. We must banish this idea. Delisle (1980) states it clearly:
#
?
? ?? 
?
? 
?
?

? 
??
?
 ?
??
 

In addition to reading comprehension ability, the knowledge of specialized subjects derived from
specialized training and a wide cultural background, and the global vision of cross-cultural and
interlingual communication, it is a 
to learn how to handle the strategic and tactical tools for
a good translating performance.
Hence the importance of a didactic translation approach: A methodology that allows the
development of an effective and efficient transfer process from one language to another. As is
widely known by those committed to the field, translation as a formal professional activity with a
theoretical background is relatively new. Thus, a number of terms have recently been coined for
the subject called Translation Theory ("Translatology" in Canada, "Traductología" in Spain,
"Translation Studies" in Belgium and the Netherlands).

This discipline being so new, little has been done in terms of academic training in higher
education in Chile to devise didactic methods and procedures to teach or learn how to translate. I
quite agree with William Weaver, the translator of c???
?$ , who claims that?
"c 
? ? 
?
??
?
?." Nonetheless, we teachers may facilitate our
own task and that of our students if we take advantage of the appropriate tools and strategies.

Cognition sciences have provided us with simple but very useful ideas about meaningful
learning, i.e. a positive approach to learning that comes from the relationship between previous
knowledge and new knowledge.1

This cognitive approach perfectly applies to the transfer process of ideas from one language to
another, which obviously implies a lot more than the simple reproduction model. In the
preparatory phase of a translation, cognition, in the form of self-consciousness and self-
confidence, plays a very important role, inasmuch as this period implies conscious mental
activities, where translating problems are detected and analyzed, and information and knowledge
are accumulated (Kussmaul, 1995).

From the psychological and social point of view, the translator, whose profile should be that of
an intellectual worker with professional training characteristics such as the above-mentioned,
will be more successful if her/his social-affective development is given more emphasis, for s/he
may be better prepared for cooperative work, and s/he may reach a higher tolerance level,
showing respect, self-criticism and sensitivity.


c 





With regard to the principal approaches to a translation text, the most renowned translation
theorists (Delisle, Newmark, Nida, Nord, Kussmaul) are in agreement on the following aspects:

Firstly, there is comprehension and interpretation of texts which implies the management of the
approach principles to various types of texts, considering the textual, referential, cohesion and
naturalness levels. This competence includes reading comprehension and message interpretation
(encoding and decoding).

Secondly, re-wording is also important. It means the application of the various strategies for the
restitution process of the message (re-coding) by choosing the appropriate method(s), techniques
and procedures. Among the most frequently used procedures for the restoration of ideas
contained in a translation unit, a translator may resort to transfer, cultural or functional
equivalent, synonymy, transposition, modulation, compensation, reduction and expansion or
amplification (See Newmark, P., 1995: ’?c
??c 
). These skills constitute the
essence of translating competence and should most strongly emphasized in the training
prospective translators. For this purpose, it is also indispensable to make effective use of
different types of documentation: Parallel texts, monolingual and bilingual dictionaries,
encyclopedias, term data base, informants, other sources.

And thirdly, translation theorists give great importance to the assessment of the result, i.e.
evidencing the capacity to confront the translated text with the original text, being able to assess
earnings and losses and showing self-correction capacity. It is the accurate revision of the output
that will definitely result in a final translation of higher quality. 


c  
 

According to most translation theorists, the specific approaches to text translation tend to be
similar. On the one hand, it is necessary to use one or more translating approaches or models. On
the other, there is always a way of approaching an SL text, whether the translator chooses the
author-centered traditional model, the text-centered structuralistic model or the cognitive reader-
centered model. Depending on their training, translators will adopt one model or another, but
many will tend to tend to an eclectic integration of the three approaches.

Translators should be aware of the fact that incorrect comprehension of a text considerably
decreases the quality of the translation. We must, therefore, use reading comprehension
strategies for translation (underlining words, detecting translation difficulties, contextualizing
lexical items²never isolating them -, adapting, analyzing, and so on.)

Finding solutions to dilemmas is a constant in the work of the translator. This includes
translating problems such as linguistic or cultural "untranslatability," being able to manage losses
and gains, solutions to lexical ambiguity, etc., through various mechanisms such as
compensation, loans, explanatory notes, adaptation, equivalence, paraphrasing, analogies, etc.

Translators should also be aware that meaning is not only conveyed by words. Hence adequate
decoding and re-coding of nomenclatures, figures, tables and charts; standardized terms,
acronyms, metonyms, toponyms, etc. is a matter that must be properly considered.

A good translator should define some essential starting-points for the approximation to a text to
be translated, such as the author of the text, the aim of the text, the readership, and the standard
to be used, for which it is important to identify and categorize the author, the message, the kind
of discourse, the translator and the readership.

Another important aspect is the pre-editing of the original text to detect eventual source text
defects, on the one hand, and the post-editing of the translated text to verify the use of the most
adequate syntactic, semantic and graphemic levels (recognition of the reviser's role), on the other
hand.
Among formal matters, translators should be aware of and control the sound effect and cadence
of the translated text ("translating with the ear") to avoid cacophonous combinations and calque
on the source language.

ÿegarding the use of translation procedures and strategies, translators must constantly make
choices, in each paragraph, sentence or translation unit, so as to decide which of them is the most
useful for the transfer of the ideas in the text being translated. It means adapting the most suitable
strategies and techniques to the requirements of the text rather than adopting a certain technique
and using it for ever.

Last, but not least, translators should observe that the essence²in terms of meaning and sense,
register and style, etc.[
  

     
 [     
  




 
   
 
 [   
    


 

 

        
     



        

  
  
     


     

 



      



 
 
   


   


       
       

 
 [

 
 
     
[



 !


 
  


 
 
 
 
  
        


 
 


 


   

 


  
      
 
 

          
""  

   #
 
   
 !


 
    

$ 
   !
 

   

   
%   
   
  
  !

      &  ' 
  
       
   

(?  
 

    

   

  

   

    
   )    

  
  
  


      
    #
  


    $ 
         

# 
   *  
  
 

   
+     
   *
  
      
 $  

 
     
  

,?     
   #
 
 
+    
 $  


     
 
    
        
   
  
      ' 
   
  

 
        
 
   
 +  
 
 


-?  
 
 
    
 
      
   
  
 
   
!

     
 


   


 
     
 
    " 
.?    
  
 
// 
  
  
    


    


 '      
 ' 
 
 /
 
 

   /    "  

   !

   
   #0  1 
 
   $ '      

 
  2   

    
 #


 
    $     

 + 
    
   +      
  
 
    
   
  
      /
  


   / 
 
  
 
  
  

 
     
 

    
      




   


3?  
       
 
 
 

   

4        

        

 


  
 
     
  
 
 
 


           
   
  
  


  
  


 
    

5? '     

 !

 
 
   
  
  
 

 
      

       
 
 


  

   
 62
   

   2
   

  #/ " " 


 / 1 
 (773
$    

 
   
 




 
  
      
 

8? '       

    
  
  

 
  

 '         
   

    

  

  
 
 

  #   

   
  


 $   


     
  
   

 


      
 


9? :  / " " /   
    
 
    
   

 [   
  
[
     




  
 
  

   

   
  


7?      
      + 
   


     

 
     62  
 
 

 +      


  
   
 

   
 (;?  

  
    
   
 
  

    
     
       
 
   

  
 
  
     
    

 


   
  !
    
    
 
 
//   

    

((? 4
     
  

  
   

 

    
         
   

      
  

(,?  1 
 
 /

      

 / #1 
 (773$ 6
 

  

  
  
  
  # $       
 

  
      

 
 
   
     
    

(-? 

   
    


    


< 


  
 
  


  
  
  
 


     


<    /
     
 

  

) 
  
 


 %  / #=


 (773$

(.?  
 
    
       
  "  
  


 
            
 
 
"

 

       


(3?  
 

 
    #   " $    
  


 


   
 <    /
/  
 
 
 
   




< 


 
       

'  
      '


 
  
 
 


  
   


  
     % 
   
   
     


    

   

 '       
    
   


     
  
 
   
  
      / / 
 
 
     
 # / /    
$       
 

 

   
  



  
 
 

    > 
         
 
       
     
  
     6


ñ? 6
  
  
     




ñ? =    
 


 


ñ? &  
      
 
   
 

ñ? !


  

   

 
 

ñ? !

 

   

  


ñ? '  

 
  
   
 

ñ? ' 
  
    
 


ñ? 

 

 
 
  
 

ñ? 

   

 
 "   

ñ?     

  
   
 
  

ñ? 

     
 

 ñ? ·   

   
 

%  #
  
  
  1:

$

ñ? !


  

   
   
    

' 
 

  


    
       
 
  

  
   


        62
 
   2
 
 
  

      


  #:

 (77.$

     ·

 

ñ? 6
     62
  2 

    
  

   
    

ñ?     
 

  
   

 #? (77.$

ñ? 
   
  


    

ñ?      
 
 
 
 
 

 

ñ?     
  
 
    


ñ? 

   
  
 



     /

  

  

/ #=


 (773$

ñ? 

     

 


ñ? 


 

*   
 "  



 
 

 
 ñ? 

  

 '





ñ?     
 
 #   
  
  
 

      
$
   


   

   
  
 <   
   

 
  

   

   
 
 
  
 
 


     
 
  


ñ? '
 
  
 
  
   
  
   !

 

 
 
  

ñ?  

   
  
    

  




ñ?  
       

 

       '




  
 
 

·


 

 
  =


 #(773$  
  
   
     
 +  
     !
     
 
     

  
 '
   
 
 

 
    

ñ?    
 


ñ? 2  "
  

ñ?   
  

ñ?    
  

 ñ? 6 
 


 

ñ? 
   
   

   

ñ? 

 "   #

  

   
$

ñ?   
  

ñ?    

  "  

ñ? > 


    
 <
     

  
 
 
  
  



  
    
    
 
  
 
  
  
  

 

         
 
    
 
 


 
 
 
+  


 
 ' 
   
      

 '     
   
   

     
  
  
+  

 

 
 



 [ 
 /  
   
/[


 
 
   
 
  

    
  

  

       

  
   
 
 
  

  !

   

    
[  
  
    
  #

   

 
 $

'      
       

 
 
  
       


    @
   
 

!

  

   

   


    

 "

 



"


  '     

   


 

  
 

 
 +  
   
   
  
   




  *

     
  "   

     
 
  &   
  

  
 

  


The translation of idioms takes us a stage further in considering the question of meaning and
translation, for idioms, like puns, are culture bound. Both English and Italian have corresponding
idiomatic expressions that render the idea of prevarication, and so in the process of interlingual
translation one idiom is substituted for another. This substitution is made not in the basis of the
linguistic elements in the phrase, but on the function of the idiom. The SL phrase is replaced by a
TL phrase that serves the same on the purpose in the TL culture, and the process here involves
the substitution of SL sign for TL sign. Dagut's remarks about the problems of translating
metaphor are interesting when applied also to the problem of tackling idioms:

³Since a metaphor in the SL is, by definition, a new piece of performance, a semantic novelty, it
can clearly have no existing `equivalence' in the TL: what is unique can have no counterpart.
Here the translator's bilingual competence is of help to him only in the negative sense of telling
him that any `equivalence' in this case cannot be `found' but will have to be created. The crucial
question that arises is thus whether a metaphor can, strictly speaking, be translated as , or
whether it can only be `reproduced' in some way.´

But Dagut's distinction between `translation' and `reproduction', like Catford's distinction
between `literal' and `free' translation does not take into account the view that sees translation as
semiotic transformation. In his definition of translation equivalence, Popovic distinguish four
types:

ñ #
? , where there is homogeneity on the linguistic level of both SL and TL
texts, i.e. word for word translation.

ñ 
? , where there is equivalence of `the elements of a paradigmatic
expressive axis', i.e. elements of grammar, which Popovic sees as being a higher category than
lexical equivalence.

ñ 


?%
 
"? , where there is `functional equivalence of elements in both
original and translation aiming at an expressive identity with an invariant of identical meaning'.

ñ c
?%


"? , where there is equivalence of the syntagmatic structuring
of a text, i.e. equivalence of form and shape.

Albrecht Neubert, whose work on translation is unfortunately not available to English readers,
distinguishes between the study of translation as a  and as a 
 He states bluntly
that: `the³missing link´ between both components of a complete theory of translations appears to
be the theory of equivalence relations that can be conceived for both the dynamic and the static
model'.

Eugene Nida distinguishes two types of equivalence,  and 
, where formal
equivalence `focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. Nida calls this
kind of translation a `gloss translation', which aims to allow the reader to understand as much of
the SL context as possible.?&
?  is based on the principle of  
?
,
i.e. that the relationship between receiver and message should aim at being the same as that
between the original receivers and the SL message.
In trying to solve the problem of translation equivalence, Neubert postulates that from the point
of view of a theory of texts, translation equivalence must be considered a? 
?

,
comprising a


, 
?and 
 component, following Pierce's categories. These
components are arranged in a hierarchical relationship, where semantic equivalence takes
priority over syntactic equivalence, and pragmatic equivalence conditions and modifies both the
other elements. Equivalence overall results from the relation between signs and themselves, the
relationship between signs and what they stand for, and the relationship between signs, what they
stand for and those who use them .

Mukarovský's view that the literary text has both an autonomous and a communicative character
has been taken up by Lotman, who argues that a text is 
(it is expressed in definite signs),

?(it begins and ends at a given point), and it has

?as a result of internal
organization. The signs of the text are in a relation of opposition to the signs and structures
outside the text. A translator must therefore bear in mind both its autonomous and its
communicative aspects and any theory of equivalence should take both elements into account.

Equivalence in translation, then, should not be approached as a search for sameness, since
sameness cannot even exist between two TL versions of the same text, let alone between the SL
and the TL versions. Popovic's four types offer a useful starting point and Neubert's three
semiotic categories point the way towards an approach that perceives equivalence as a dialectic
between the signs and the structures within and surrounding the SL and TL texts.

V 



Once the principle is accepted that sameness cannot exist between two languages, it becomes
possible to approach the question of? ?and  in the translation processes. It is again an
indication of the low status of translation that so much time should have been spent on discussing
what is lost in the transfer of a text from SL to TL whilst ignoring what can also be gained, for
the translator can at times enrich or clarify the SL text as a direct result of the translation process.
Moreover, what is often seen as `lost' from the SL context may be replaced in the TL context.

Eugene Nida is a rich source of information about the problems of loss in translation, in
particular about the difficulties encountered by the translator when faced with terms or concepts
in the SL that do not exist in the TL.

Î






Catford distinguishes two types of 

 
 

 which he terms 
?and 
 On
the linguistic level, untranslatability occurs when there is no lexical or syntactical substitute in
the TL for an SL item, for example the German '??'?????( is
linguistically untranslatable, `cause involves an structure that do not exist into English. Yet it can
be adequately translated into English once the rules of English structure are applied. A translator
would unhesitatingly render the sentence as?)
?
??
??
? ??
(,
restructuring the German word order to conform to English norms.
Catford category of linguistic untranslatability, which is also proposed by Popovic, is
straightforward, but his second category is more problematic. Linguistic untranslatability is due
to differences in the SL and the TL, whereas cultural untranslatability is due to the absence in the
TL culture of a relevant situational feature for the SL text. Now on one level Catford is right. The
English phrases can be translated into most European languages. But he fails to take into account
two significant factors, and he seems to typify the problem of an overly narrow approach to the
question of untranslatability. If I!???is translated as *? ??, the content
meaning of the SL sentence (i.e. self assertive statement of intention to proceed to place of
residence and/or origin) is only loosely reproduced. And if, for example, the phrase is spoken by
an American resident temporarily in London, it could either imply a return to the immediate
`home' or a return across the Atlantic, depending on the context in which is used, a distinction
that would have to be spelled out in French. Moreover, the English term??like the French

?has a range of associative meanings that are not translated by the more restricted phrase
?.

The problem here is that the reader will have a concept of the term based on his or her cultural
context, and will apply that particularized view accordingly. Catford starts from different
premises, and because he goes not go far enough in considering the dynamic nature of language
and culture, he invalidates his own category of 
?
 
 

?In so far as language is
the primary modelling system within a culture, cultural untranslatability must be ?
 implied
in any process of translation. Once again it is Popovic who has attempted to define
untranslatability without making a separation between the linguistic and the cultural. Popovic
also distinguishes two types:

ñ A situation in which the linguistic elements of the original cannot be replaced adequately in
structural, linear, functional or semantic terms in consequence of lack of denotation or
connotation.

ñ A situation where the relation of expressing the meaning, i.e. the relation between the creative
subject and its linguistic expression in the original does not find an adequate linguistic
expression in the translation.

The first type may be seen as parallel to Catford's category of linguistic untranslatability, while
this second type come phrases such as -?

or the interesting series of everyday phrases in
Danish for expressing thanks.

Popovic second type, like Catford's secondary category, illustrates the difficulties of describing
and defining the limits of translatability, but whilst Catford starts from within linguistics,
Popovic starts from a position that involves a theory of literary communication. Lewandowski, in
an article in which he attempts to sum up the state of translation studies and semiotics, feels that
Catford is `divorced from reality', while Mounin feels that too much attention has been given to
the problem of untranslatability at the expense of solving some of the actual problems that the
translator has to deal with.

Mounin feels that it is thanks to developments in contemporary linguistics that we can accept
that:
(1) Personal experience in its uniqueness is untranslatable.

ñ In theory the base units of any two languages (e.g. phonemes, monemes, etc.)are not always
comparable.

ñ Communication is possible when account is taken of the respective situations of speaker and
hearer, or author and translator.

In other words, Mounin believes that linguistics demonstrates that translation is a 
? ?
that can be accomplished with relative success - communication through translation can never be
completely finished, which also demonstrates that it is never wholly impossible either.

As has already been suggested, it is clearly the task of the translator to find a solution to even the
most daunting of problems. Such solutions may vary enormously; the translator's decision as to
what constitutes invariant information with the respect to a given system reference is in itself a
creative act. Levý stresses the intuitive element in translating:

³As in all semiotic processes, translation has its 

?  as well. Translation theory
tends to be normative, to instruct translators on the OPTIMAL solution; actual translator work, is
pragmatic; the translator resolves for that one of the possible solutions which promises a
maximum of effect with a minimum of effort. That is to say, he intuitively resolves for the so-
called MINIMAX STÿATEGY.´

   



The purpose of translation theory, then, is to reach an understanding of the processes undertaken
in the act of translation and, not, as is so commonly misunderstood, to provide a set of norms for
effecting the perfect translation. The pragmatic dimension in translation cannot be categorized,
any more than the `inspiration' of a text can be defined and prescribed. Once this point is
accepted, two issues that continue to bedevil Translation Studies can be satisfactorily resolved;
the problem of whether there can be a `science of translation' and whether translating is a
`secondary activity'.

The myth of translation as a secondary activity with all associations of lower status implied in
that assessment, can be dispelled once the extent of the pragmatic element of translation is
accepted, and once the relationship between author/translator/reader is outlined. The process of
translation shows that the translator is both receiver and sender, the end and the beginning of two
separate but linked chains of communication:

Author -- Text -- ÿeceiver = Translator -- Text -- ÿeceiver

Every text is unique and, at the same time, it is the translation of another text. No text is entirely
original `cause the language itself, in its essence, is already a translation: firstly, of the non-
verbal world and secondly, since every sign and every phrase is the translation of another sign
and another phrase. However, this argument can be turned around without losing any of its
validity: all text are original `cause every translation is distinctive. Every translation, up to a
certain point, is an invention and as such it constitutes a unique text.

rSPECIFIC PÿOBLEMS OF LITEÿAÿY TÿANSLATION

In the introduction to this book it is assured the need for a close relationship between the theory
and the practise of translation. In this section it is proposed to approach the question of the
translation of literary works through close analysis of examples not so much to evaluate the
products but rather to show how specific problems of translation can emerge from the individual
translators' selection of criteria.



The failure of many translators to understand that literary text is made up of a complex set of
systems existing in a dialectical relationship with other sets outside its boundaries has often led
them to focus on particular aspects of a text at the expense of others. Lotman determines four
essential positions of the addressee:

ñ Where the reader focuses on the content as a matter, i.e. picks out the prose argument or poetic
paraphrase.

ñ Where the reader grasps the complexity of the structure of a work and the way in which the
various levels interact.

ñ Where the reader deliberately extrapolates one level of the work for a specific purpose.

ñ Where the reader discovers elements not basic to the genesis of the text and uses the text for
his own purposes.

Clearly, for the purposes of translation, position (1) would be completely inadequate (although
many translators of novels in particular have focused on content at the expense of the formal
structuring of the text), position (2) would seem an ideal starting point, whilst positions (3) and
(4) might be tenable circumstances. The translator is, first a reader and then a writer and in the
process of reading he or she must take a position.

The fourth position, in which the reader discovers elements in the text that have evolved since its
genesis, is almost unavoidable when the text belongs to a cultural system distanced in time and
space.

Much time and ink has been wasted attempting to differentiate between
 
 ?  ?


 ?and the establishment of hierarchy of `correctness' between these categories. Yet the
differentiation between them derives from a concept of the reader as the passive receiver of the
text in which its Truth is enshrined. In other words, if the text is perceived as an object that
should only produce a single invariant reading, any `deviation' on the part of the reader/translator
will be judged as a transgression. One of the greatest advances of the twenty-century literary
study has been the re-evaluation of the reader. So Barthes sees the place of the literary work as
that of making the reader not so much a consumer as a  of the text, while Julia Kristeva
sees the reader as realising the expansion of the work's process of semiosis.