how translation theory informs the translation process
We all know that the craft of translation requires more than intimate knowledge of both source and target language and culture. But do we share the insight that translation also requires professional training?
Personally I like to describe translators as decision makers. There are plenty of decisions - which is the right terminological choice, the best sentence structure, or even if something can get lost in translation or not. Anyway - the thing with decisions is that they had better be informed by something - unless you are happy to act randomly.
Andrew Chesterman wrote an article titled “Psst! Theory can be useful!” on http://ec.europa.eu/translation/reading/articles/pdf/2000_tp_chesterman.pdf. Commenting on a EU test translations, he says
Quote:
“When assessing the scripts, I had the feeling that many of these would-be professional translators were working like amateur carpenters, trying to make a decent book-case but without using obvious things like a saw, hammer, screw-driver etc. Here are a few simple theoretical tools that would have been useful in deciding how to translate the example sentence.”
Using a fairly complex translation example, he suggest how ideas about transposition, deverbalisation, iconicity, or relevance could inform the translator’s decision making process.
I have to admit that I don’t remember too many names and details of translation theories (though Vermeer still rings a bell, and names like “Kussmaul and Hönig” are just difficult to forget (more difficult than their theories). But I do remember the concepts - and when ever I translate, they do come in handy when it comes to crunching difficult passages.