Editor: Kwanele Sicelo Kilani
Fundamentally, translation is the act of conducting a process. This is a typical definition you will find in a dictionary, because they avoid calling it an art or a science. An Oxford dictionary will inform you that translation is a process of translating (changing) words or a text from one language into another. It will also inform you that a process is a series of steps or actions taken towards achieving a set goal. Meaning the "translator" is performing the act of this process, hence the title translator. Now that we understand the title, we then need to understand the defined process. An action cannot be taken on a process that is not clearly defined. This ambiguity will eventually lead to the detriment of the intended goal. For many years, this has been a topic of debate among translation scholars and theorists. The premise is whether or not translation is an art or a science. There is enough material to prove each as being correct. Hence, why it remains a hot topic to this day.
Translation studies is the academic discipline related to the study of the theory and phenomena of translation. By its nature it is multilingual and also interdisciplinary, encompassing any language combinations, various branches of linguistics, comparative literature, communication studies, philosophy and a range of types of cultural studies including post colonialism and postmodernism as well as sociology and historiography. Because of this diversity, one of the biggest problems in teaching and learning about translation studies is that much of it is dispersed across such a wide range of books and journals.
-Jeremy Munday [2001]
A closer look
In my opinion, art is explicitly human. We use art as an outlet for expressing what lies within us. Basically, it is how humans externalise and express secrets that are hidden within the soul, heart and mind, and cannot be seen by others. Art then becomes personal and emotive for both the artist and the aesthete. Meaning art is a tool used to reveal humanity as naked and as unveiled as possible. It is innate and present in everyone of us. Our individuality makes it unique, and keeps it interesting and constantly evolving. I believe creativity manifests in our interests. Those that find interest in words often appreciate poetry, rap, soulful music, lyrics. They pay attention to copy write and they speak funny. They are probably the sarcastic friend, the sharp tongued friend, or the funny friend. They just have a way with words. While those that enjoy drawings and sculptures probably pay attention to detail. They might enjoy nature, and they may even that there's a shade of white known as 'Pedi white'. They are probably the friend that is super specific about colours and details. They might even enjoy DIYing everything because they have sharp eyes for detail and colour. Anything that is not perfect, in terms of colour-matching and symmetry with furniture and other pieces in the house, annoys them.
In contrast, science seeks to explain worldly (and other worldly) phenomena. Science is basically a systematic study of the world. The word study is used because a study is considered scientific if it went through a series of tests and evolutions and is considered to be factual by other academics in that field and critics. So, if we were to put art and science together, art would be expressive and science would try and explain art. Science would debunk that expression and explain each and every factor to it. Therefore, through science we can appreciate art, and through art we can understand science. Where translation is concerned, calling it a science means that all opinions and studies of the participants in the field make it a science. Them proving, arguing and even disproving theories and other elements contributes towards making it a scientific study. With that being said, translation as a science mostly focuses on Machine Translation. Where the main question is: With technology advancing rapidly, will there be no spot for human translators in the future? Most scholars and theorists say no to that question, and their answer often gravitates towards agreeing with translation as an art. That is because machines do not understand art at human level, allegedly.
Nadia Khomami, on theguardian.com [July 2023], talks about why translation is an art, and why translators need to be credited for their participation in the literary world. The two featured translators are Yilin Wang and Jennifer Croft. In recent years, these names have caused waves in the world of translation. As mentioned by Khomami, these women have fought for translators to be recognised for their efforts. Mainly fighting for translators to be named on book covers that they have worked on. Khomami quotes Wang saying that translating a Chinese poem into English takes as much time and effort as creating an original one.
Wang also talks about the amount of research that goes into understanding the authors. Every translators talks about this point. They say that it is a critical part of the process. It also happens to be the point that breathes life into this premise. This is the part where the translator has to use their creativity and comprehension skills to give the secondary reader the same experience as the initial reader in the original language. This suggests that the translator, even though they did not conjure it, they introduced something new to a group of people. For that, they deserve their roses. They work just as much as authors, dare I say they work even harder. Simply because they are tasked with the labour of research. They have to research the authors, the author's culture, timeline, society and religion to better understand their word choices and intentions. After retrieving all of this they have to repeat that into the target language, and then decide on what is appropriate and what is not. A wonderful piece of writing on this matter is 'The Translator's Invisibility' by Lawrence Venuti [2004]. My favorite quote from this book is:
"I see translation as the attempt to produce a text so transparent that it does not seem to be translated. A good translation is like a pane of glass. You only notice that it’s there when there are little imperfections— scratches, bubbles. Ideally, there shouldn’t be any. It should never call attention to itself."
-Norman Shapiro
The quote is from the first chapter titled "Invisibility". In this chapter Venuti talks fluency in translation. He says that past translations worked because they were fluent and could pass as the original. Reverting to the 'pane of glass' quote above. In the examples he provided (translations that were successful in the UK and the USA, as well as their reviews) it is clear to see that the translators had to focus on two things: working to make their work invisible so to give the illusion of it being the original. While keeping this, they had to be faithful to their translator's duty which is to relay the message as it was intended. After adhering to all these expectations and rules, their names were not even on the covers. This is a point that Jennifer Croft and others were protesting, that the act of carrying out this process is quite tedious and taxing. The effort never matches the recognition. Meeting all these expectations that translators are faced with, and successfully pleasing everyone requires tact. The kind of tactical skill that stems from having an artistic eye, or artistic instinct for this craft. Making translation an art because, unlike a machine, a person can understand that the message lies behind words. Meaning that often times certain words (and phrases) need to be omitted, while staying true to the intended message. This is often due to cultural and traditional barriers that a machine might not consider. Machine translation centers around words. Its job is to change a word into its parallel in the target language. You will often see this when you see its dictionary and translation memory functions in MAT. Sometimes a faithful translation is the answer. When faced with such a translation machine assistance is very useful. This type of translation is referred to as MAT (Machine Assisted Translation). There are a number of software created for this. We used OmegaT, but it is not the only one out there. These have really cool features like translation memory, where you only need to introduce the equivalent once. Every time the word appears it will suggest the equivalent, and if it is not the word you are looking for you can introduce a new one. All these terms go into your translation dictionary in the software, so you never lose them.
“Invisibility” is the term I will use to describe the translator’s situation and activity in contemporary Anglo-American culture. It refers to two mutually determining phenomena: one is an illusionistic effect of discourse, of the translator’s own manipulation of English; the other is the practice of reading and evaluating translations that has long prevailed in the United Kingdom and the United States, among other cultures, both English and foreign language. A translated text, whether prose or poetry, fiction or nonfiction, is judged acceptable by most publishers, reviewers, and readers when it reads fluently, when the absence of any linguistic or stylistic peculiarities makes it seem transparent, giving the appearance that it reflects the foreign writer’s personality or intention or the essential meaning of the foreign text—the appearance, in other words, that the translation is not in fact a translation, but the “original.” The illusion of transparency is an effect of fluent discourse, of the translator’s effort to insure easy readability by adhering to current usage, maintaining continuous syntax, fixing a precise meaning. What is so remarkable here is that this illusory effect conceals the numerous conditions under which the translation is made, starting with the translator’s crucial intervention in the foreign text The more fluent the translation, The Translator’s Invisibility more invisible the translator, and, presumably, the more visible the writer or meaning of the foreign text.
-Lawrence Venuti
In my translation experience, the hardest part is always producing an acceptable text. All things considered, a text that is functional within the target culture, and carries the original message has always been a difficult feat to achieve. As a creative and a native speaker, I understand the assignment. However, as a translator and a writer I have to be less flexible and even less creative. Which always presented a huge problem for me. These two aspects clashed, and I always found it difficult to overcome them. It was difficult because each project seemed vastly different from the last. Nonetheless, they did give me insight and valuable lessons. Venuti points out the fact that in the target culture the translated text should be fluent, and pose as an original in order for it to be accepted. I find this fact to be a universal truth despite him talking about the USA and the UK. Christiane Nord [2018] distinguishes between Covert and Overt translational functions. These help translators understand fluency in translation, and can be used as guides in this aspect. Overt translation is marked translation, meaning that the reader can tell that they are reading a translated text. This form bravely expresses the "stylistic peculiarities" that Venuti mentions, it even includes footnotes that explain the choices made if equivalence was not possible. Other ways include stating that it is in fact a translated text before they get into the actual text. Another way is by listing the translator on the list of authors and everyone that participated in the creation of that text. On the other hand, covert translation is not marked. This piece is written with the intention of coming across as the original in the target culture. This is the kind of translation Venuti was talking about. This was always the standard for me too. Even if at the end I knew that it would be marked, I still wanted it to feel original. Professionally, this is also the ideal because it is appealing in the target culture and language. The aim of this function is not to fool anyone, but to rather produce a text that blends in so perfectly that it feels original. These types of texts are normally essential pieces of information within the society. Or, they can play a big social role within the society, hence, the need to blend in seamlessly.
Another function that pairs well with the covert function is the expressive function. Katharina Reiss who is known for her role in functionalism, was a German scholar. She proposed functionalism in the 1970s as part of her text typology. Text typology suggests that when it comes to equivalence, translational functions and functionalism needs to consider the entire text and not just words. The name she coined it already implies that these functions apply to the text as a whole. The expressive function is among the functions she explains. Hongping Chen and Xueyan Zhang [2020] wrote an article in the journal 'East African Scholars Journal of Education, Humanities and Literature' about Reiss's text typology. They explain that Reiss's expressive function focuses on the aesthetic of the source text. They also explain that this function requires the translator to be faithful to the author's perspective and intended message. Nord's expressive function contradicts Reiss's. She states that her expressive function is different because it is not restricted to the aesthetic aspect of the text. In fact, hers focuses on the translator/author's attitude towards worldly phenomena. Considering both these takes on the expressive function, translating under them and trying to be covert in your translation requires creativity and understanding. The translator is required to extract the essence of the text and the writer collectively. Then attempt to mirror that as far as possible.
Closing remarks
My view on all of this is that translation can be both. I consider it as both. Yes, I will admit I am tipped to art side. However, I do acknowledge it as a science too. The theories and views we learn in school are extensively researched and discussed. They are facts, and those that are flawed are constantly revisited and revised. Also, MAT is awesome! It might require perfect circumstances, however, it comes through an shines when needed. As an armature I will admit that machines do play a major role in my writing and editing. So perhaps machines will not take over my field, but they will help enhance it greatly. Which is their main purpose to begin with.
