Translation as intepretation
whenever we talk about translation, we have several definitions to take into account, and
one of this is related of course on the concept of meaning. A meaning always have to be
interpreted, so whenever we want to transfer a meaning into another language, from one
culture to another, we need to interpret that meaning. So that’s why we say that meaning
is always related to interpretation and a translator is first of all a reader. The translator has
to read the text in order to interpret it, to analyse it. And then building on that interpretation
a translation is produced.
So the translation is always a product that results from any interpretation. And there is the
main idea from which Nida developed the model that can be apply to every translating act.
This models consists on 3 stages: the first one in the analysis that is the analysis of the
text, then we transfer the meaning we capture from the text into the other language and
then we have to restructure that meaning into the target language because as we know
there is no ordinally full equivalence between languages, so we always recode a meaning
into another language and into to another culture of course.
And there is also the idea of equivalence, that is possible only in difference, both from a
linguistic and culture point of view. And this also be lade to Venuti’s idea of original and
copy because when we say that a text is always interpreted, even though we stay that the
source text is an original, reality is actually different because this means that even the
source text is a sort of derivative text in terms of interpretation, because an author doesn’t
have control of the several interpretation that a source text can have. So in that sense,
even a source text can be considered as an interpretation just like translation. So in that
case translation is always an interpretation and therefore cannot be considered only
through semantic equivalence because there is always more than one meaning in a text.
Extend this to more complex text, in particular literary text (we product different version of
literary text when we translate): there is the idea of translation as a product. When we
define translation as a product it is always better to say that translation is a plurality of
products or version of the very same text, because they depend on the choices and to the
strategies adopted by each translator, so there is a link to the concept of interpretation,
and there is why every translation should be considered as an original because it is the
result of a creative process, an effort by the translator. When we comes to literary texts we
have many problems, not only with poetry which is considered the most complex genre,
but even with prose that is apparently less problems than poetry or even more with
dramatic texts, because in dramatic texts we have very few materials, because not many
people try to understand the problem related to translating dramatic texts which are
considered by some just like prose texts. But when we look a dramatic text we don’t have
to consider it as prose text because there is another element that must be considered and
that is performance.
Equivalence according to Nida: Nida distinguished formal equivalence and dynamic
equivalence, but this concept is also relate free and literal translation, or Newmark’s
definition of semantic and communicative translation.
Translation culture The relationship between language, translation and culture is a key
aspect of communication.
