Idiotic statement of the week (translation issues)
Tadas Blinda
About Obama's trip to Moskau. First a little context (this is not the
idiotic part yet):
"Tom Malinowski, who was a speechwriter for Mr. Clinton, said Russian
audiences were always the toughest to connect with.
“It is a jaded political culture that has had a very hard experience
with a system that professed universal idealism while delivering
unbearable suffering,” said Mr. Malinowski, now Washington advocacy
director for Human Rights Watch. “Some degree of cynicism about high-
minded ideals is a natural outcome of that.”
He said Mr. Obama’s facility with language gives him the ability to
talk around governments directly to people. Mr. Obama, he said, has
the talent to “do that in every part of the world, except possibly
Russia.”
OK, now for the idiotic statement:
"Sergei Brilev, a top television anchor at Rossiya, the state-owned
national channel, said that Mr. Obama’s oratory might not translate
well into Russian. He recalled that when he watched Mr. Obama’s speech
in Cairo with dubbing in Russian, he found it lacklustre. "
Well, for one thing, let Brilev attempt a few minutes of simultaneous
translation and let him see whether it is a challenge or not, and
whether his results are lacklustre or not. Secondly, a truly
competent translator, given enough time and resources, can render a
fine text in one language (if it truly is fine) into a fine text in
another language, any language, yes, including Russian.
Getting away from this particular case, what is a lot harder to do is
to turn a pig's ear into a silk purse. Which is what a lot of clients
require of us translators. And they are very ready with the blame
trigger-finger when they don't like the result. They would rather
blame the translator than admit to the shortcomings of the particular
text. And indeed, submitting a document for translation is a great
way to test its quality. Nonsense is hard to translate. A translator
has to analyse every sentence, every clause, and the text is badly
composed, the flaws will be revealed.
Peteris Cedrins
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/world/europe/08russia.html?_r=1&th&...
I agree that translation often reveals the flaws in a text. In my
experience as both a speechwriter and translator for two presidents
here, I preferred to be given enough latitude to transform the
original, essentially writing an address anew. A fine text can be
rendered into a fine text in another language, as you say, but the
language of politics can be dramatically different in different
cultures, as the politics often are. On the other hand, there is often
a problem of sameness, especially among European politicians.
Geriausio,
/P
Vladimir Makarenko
> On 8 Jļæ½l., 11:25, Tadas Blinda <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/world/europe/08russia.html?_r=1&th&...
>>
>> About Obama's trip to Moskau. First a little context (this is not the
>> idiotic part yet):
>>
>> "Tom Malinowski, who was a speechwriter for Mr. Clinton, said Russian
>> audiences were always the toughest to connect with.
>>
>> with a system that professed universal idealism while delivering
>> director for Human Rights Watch. ļæ½Some degree of cynicism about high-
>> minded ideals is a natural outcome of that.ļæ½
>>
>> He said Mr. Obamaļæ½s facility with language gives him the ability to
>> talk around governments directly to people. Mr. Obama, he said, has
>> Russia.ļæ½
>>
>> OK, now for the idiotic statement:
>>
>> "Sergei Brilev, a top television anchor at Rossiya, the state-owned
>> well into Russian. He recalled that when he watched Mr. Obamaļæ½s speech
My Amateurish observations - English is much much more "precise"
language than Russian - it has a word for everything. Russian modulates
the meaning of the word depending on context. It is in some way very
"evasive". That's why Russian native speakers feel crazy when speaking
English - it is not like changing a T-shirt, redress yourself, - you
have to change the way you think.
VM.
Dmitry
As soon as I started thinking in English I found conversation in
Russian more and more difficult. Understanding is not a problem, but
translating my thoughts in order to answer back. Everyone in scb
speaks more than one language, does anyone think in two or more
languages? Just curious, is it just me - a monolingual "thinker"?
Sorry for OT.
>
> VM.
Tadas Blinda
I think in both Lithuanian and English, sometimes with bits of French
or Spanish or even something else drifting through my thoughts.
I think it's easy to overstate the amount of influence our particular
language has on the way we think. I don't accept Vlad's contention
that English is "more precise" than Russian (or some other language).
It's all in the way an individual uses language. As a translator I am
constantly comparing text and ways of expressing things in more than
one language, and I think you won't find a serious linguist anywhere
who would try to claim that any particular language has a monopoply on
"preciseness" and suchlike.
Vladimir Makarenko
My biggest problem is dreams - when I wake up I do not remember what
language was there.
VM.
>
>
>> VM.
>
Vladimir Makarenko
> On Jul 8, 4:57 pm, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>>> have to change the way you think.
>> As soon as I started thinking in English I found conversation in
>> Russian more and more difficult. Understanding is not a problem, but
>> translating my thoughts in order to answer back. Everyone in scb
>> speaks more than one language, does anyone think in two or more
>> languages? Just curious, is it just me - a monolingual "thinker"?
>> Sorry for OT.
>>
>>
>>
>>> VM.
>
> I think in both Lithuanian and English, sometimes with bits of French
> or Spanish or even something else drifting through my thoughts.
>
> I think it's easy to overstate the amount of influence our particular
> language has on the way we think. I don't accept Vlad's contention
> that English is "more precise" than Russian (or some other language).
> It's all in the way an individual uses language.
Just look at vocabulary - Russian is much more "poor". Besides it is
very "young" - remember the first real literature in Russian did not
show up before the XIX cent.
I read some pieces from XVIIIth cent - I hardly can understand them.
Try to figure out these words from XVIII cent Russian sailors song:
"Burya More Razdymayet".
And when Russian was just learning how to walk English already had a
"history".
Pushkin and Gogol gave a birth to Russian as we know it today.
I am a native speaker - but reading "Slovo o polku Igoreve" I miss up to
80%. They still argue up to fist fight what the hell means the very
opening - was it a figure of speech or literal depiction.
What I am trying to say - there were "many" Russian languages. They are
connected but you must be a professional to see it. E.g. - try to read a
Bible in Russian - incomprehensible for me.
VM.
Vladimir Makarenko
You may be interested in Ortega y Gasset paper on translation. Sorry I
don't remember the exact title (If I remember it right - "On
Translation") - but he basically puts theoretical ground for what
Cedrins pointed as a matter of fact, experience: there is no way to
translate - one has to "re-do" the text from the scratch.
What - in turn - makes me ask again - is a Language doomed to go away?
To be replaced by direct neuro code?
VM.
Tadas Blinda
> You may be interested in Ortega y Gasset paper on translation. Sorry I
UGLY TRANSLATIONS: ORTEGA Y GASSET’S IDEAS ON TRANSLATION WITHIN
CONTEMPORARY TRANSLATION THEORIES
Pilar Ordóñez López
Universitat Jaume I – Espanha
mord...@trad.uji.es
Abstract: This article is intended to provide a global vision of
Ortega y Gasset’s conception of translation and an integrative
evaluation of his contribution to contemporary Western Translation
Studies through the analysis of the role played by Ortega’s views
within the paradigms adopted in the most important approaches to
translation in the 20th century. The essay ‘Misery and Splendour of
Translation’ brings together Ortega’s ideas on translation, which,
despite the recent orientation towards empirical and technical methods
in Translation Studies, seem to be very much in evidence in current
translation theories. This reveals the anticipatory character of
Ortega’s ideas, formulated in 1937.
1. Introduction
José Ortega y Gasset (Madrid, 1883-1955) is considered one of the most
outstanding and influential figures in 20th century Spanish
philosophy. His name is strongly associated with philosophy and
politics. Nevertheless, a vast amount of references and reflection
about language is scattered throughout his works. These recurrent
references to language constitute what could be defined as Ortega’s
philosophical ‘theory of language’. Translation occupies a significant
position within this theory of language, and Ortega dedicated an essay
to developing his ideas on translation. In 1937, he wrote ‘Misery and
Splendour of Translation’, an essay that, as stated in
previous works (Ordóñez-López, 2006), has attained the status of a
“classic” of translation theory. However, it would be interesting to
find out whether Ortega’s ideas play an operative and active role in
contemporary Translation Studies.
‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’ was first published in the
Argentinian journal La Nación, in a series of five weekly articles,
between June 13th and July 11th, 1937. Taking into account the date of
its publication, ‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’ can be included
among early twentieth century translation theories. However, if the
approach and tone of the essay are taken into consideration, one could
undoubtedly classify it as a clear example of nineteenth century
German Romanticism. In this sense, Ortega’s approach to translation
could be considered to be a mere continuation of the paradigms of
German Romanticism. Notwithstanding, it is essential to acknowledge
the innovative character of the essay within the Spanish context. It
was Ortega’s firm purpose, as he manifested/expressed himself on
several occasions, to europeanise
Spain, and the transfer of the ideas of German Romanticism to the
Spanish context can be regarded as a way of influencing the country
with European theories.
Despite the current trends, which are more empirical and practice-
oriented, it is of vital importance to undertake the study of the
history of translation, in order to provide the discipline with a
humanistic dimension which, these days, is fundamental given the
increasing orientation towards technical approaches in Translation
Studies. An integrative and dynamic analysis of the historical
dimension of the discipline will contribute to the development and
consistency of Translation Studies.
2. ‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’: Ortega’s vision
Page 3
Ugly translations: Ortega y Gasset’s ideas...
43
of translation
The essay ‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’ is structured
as a fictitious dialogue held by academics and students of the Collège
de France, in Paris. The essay is divided into five chapters: Chap-
ter I, ‘The Misery’; Chapter II: ‘The Two Utopianisms’; Chapter
III: ‘About Talking and Keeping Silent’; Chapter IV: ‘We Don’t
Speak Seriously’; and Chapter V: ‘The Splendour’(1). Ortega’s
comprehensive exposition covers a considerable number of issues
from a philosophical approach which is based, as previously men-
tioned, on figures from German Romanticism such as Goethe,
Humboldt and Schleiermacher.
2.1. The Miseries of Translation
Ortega begins the discussion by explaining the ‘miseries’ of trans-
lation, as in his opinion admitting these miseries constitutes the
nec-
essary first step towards attaining the possible splendour of transla-
tion. On the path to splendour, Ortega tackles various aspects of
language, which he conceives as the origin and source of knowl-
edge and which takes a different shape according to each people’s
interpretation of reality.
Ortega begins by defining translation as a utopian activity, ‘Isn’t
the act of translating necessarily a utopian task?’ (Ortega y Gasset,
1992: 93). This utopian dimension is inherent, in Ortega’s view, to
every human endeavour. In the case of translation, the utopianism
is due to the ‘cowardice’ of the translator who, according to the
Spanish philosopher, would find him/herself incapable of rebelling
against established language usage, inevitably betraying the origi-
nal writer.
To write well is to make continual incursions into grammar,
into established usage, and into accepted linguistic norms. It
is an act of permanent rebellion against the social environs, a
Page 4
44
Pilar Ordóñez López
subversion. To write well is to employ a certain radical cour-
age. Fine, but the translator is usually a shy character. […]
He finds himself facing an enormous controlling apparatus,
composed of grammar and common usage. What will he do
with the rebellious text? Isn’t it too much to ask that he also
be rebellious, particularly since the text is someone else’s?
He will be ruled by cowardice […] he will betray him.
Traduttore, traditore. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 94)
The utopianism of Ortega’s vision of translation is mainly based
on writers’ personal style, formed by every author’s personal de-
viations from habitual usage, as well as on what Humboldt called
the ‘internal form’ of every language, which makes the complete
correspondence of meanings between two languages impossible.
[…] it is utopian to believe that two words belonging to differ-
ent languages, and which the dictionary gives us as transla-
tions of each other refer to exactly the same objects. Since
languages are formed in different landscapes, through differ-
ent experience, their incongruity is natural. It is false, for
example, to suppose that the thing the Spaniard calls a bosque
[forest] the German calls a Wald, yet the dictionary tells us
that Wald means bosque. […] an enormous difference exists
between the two realities. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 96)
In this vein, Ortega also considers different degrees of difficulty
in the possibility/impossibility of translating different types of
texts;
this he attributes –especially in the case of mathematics and the
natural sciences – to the use of a specific terminology, considered
by Ortega to be a ‘pseudolanguage’.
A language is a system of verbal signs through which individu-
als may understand each other without a previous accord, while
a terminology is only intelligible if the one who is writing or
speaking and the one who is reading or listening have previ-
Page 5
Ugly translations: Ortega y Gasset’s ideas...
45
ously and individually come to an agreement as to the mean-
ing of signs. […] That is why these books are easier to trans-
late from one language to another. Actually, in every country
these are written almost entirely in the same language. (Ortega
y Gasset, 1992: 95)
2.2. Attaining the Splendour
It was most important that I emphasize the miseries of trans-
lating; it was especially important that I define its difficulty,
its improbability, but not so as to remain there. On the con-
trary, it was important so that this might act as a ballistic
spring to impel us toward the possible splendour of the art of
translation. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 97)
In the three middle chapters of the essay, Ortega deals with
several aspects related to the phenomenon of language, beginning
by distinguishing two utopianisms, personalised in the good and the
bad utopian:
Both the bad and the good utopians consider it desirable to cor-
rect the natural reality that places men within the confines of
diverse languages and impedes communication between them.
The bad utopian thinks that because it is desirable, it is pos-
sible. […]The good utopian, on the other hand, thinks that be-
cause it would be desirable to free men from the divisions im-
posed by languages, there is little probability that it can be
attained; therefore, it can only be achieved to an approximate
measure. But this approximation can be greater or lesser, to an
infinite degree, and the efforts at execution are not limited, for
there always exists the possibility of bettering, refining, per-
fecting: “progress”, in short. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 98-99)
Page 6
46
Pilar Ordóñez López
As already suggested by the previous quotation, ‘talking’ is also
a utopian action, as language constitutes an ‘unsurmountable ob-
stacle’ (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 101) to the expression of our thoughts
which, besides, are already ‘in great measure attributable to the
tongue’ (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 102). Therefore, we are doubly
limited by our own language.
[…] when speaking or writing we refrain constantly from say-
ing many things because language doesn’t allow them to be
said. The effectiveness of speech does not simply lie in speak-
ing, in making statements, but, at the same time and of neces-
sity , in a relinquishing of speech, a keeping quiet, a being
silent!. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 103)
Silence is an essential element in Ortega’s conception of lan-
guage, which actively participates in the act of translating. Si-
lence consists of two different levels (Ordóñez-López, 2006: 70-
71), and it is considered an inherent and crucial component of
every language. Silence shapes each language differently, so that
‘each language is a different equation of statements and silences’
(Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 104). It is precisely here that the main
difficulty of translation lies. Nevertheless, in the philosopher’s
dual vision of translation, silence also conveys the possible
splendour of translation which, in Ortega’s humanistic vision,
consists in ‘the revelation of the mutual secrets that peoples and
epochs keep to themselves and which contribute to their separa-
tion and hostility; in short – an audacious integration of
Humanity’(Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 104).
Furthermore, Ortega considers language to be the origin and
the embryonic element of all types of knowledge. This ‘first knowl-
edge’ (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 107) originally reflected the truth
about the world and the differentiations established to the ‘limitless
continuum of diversity of reality’ (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 106) by
different peoples.
Page 7
Ugly translations: Ortega y Gasset’s ideas...
47
The consideration of language and, inevitably, silence as crucial
obstacles to translation is the only way to be able to attain the pos-
sible splendour of translation.
2.3. The Splendour of Translation
Ortega concludes his essay with a discussion about the splendour
of translating. In this chapter he describes what he understands by
translation and how translators should proceed. Ortega acknowl-
edges that ‘what is essential concerning the matter has been said
more than a century ago by the dear theologian Schleiermacher’ in
his work Über die verschiedenen Methoden des Übersetzens (1813).
Ortega contemplates the two possible methods of translation pro-
posed therein: ‘Either the translator leaves the writer alone as much
as possible and moves the reader toward the writer, or he leaves
the reader alone as much as possible and moves the writer toward
the reader’ (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 108). However, Ortega’s po-
sition is categorical: only when we tear the reader away from his
native linguistic conventions and force him to throw himself into
the mind of the original author can we speak of ‘translation proper’
(Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 108). This is the procedure to be followed
by the ‘shy’ translator.
Ortega then proceeds to establish some principles that should
govern the ‘the new enterprise of translating’ (Ortega y Gasset,
1992: 108) and define what a translation should be:
Translation is not a duplicate of the original text […] transla-
tion doesn’t even belong to the same literary genre as the text
that was translated […] translation is a literary genre apart
[…] with its own norms and own ends […] a translation is not
the work, but a path toward the work […] I imagine a form of
translation that is ugly, as science has always been; that does
not intend to wear literary garb; that is not easy to read, but is
very clear indeed. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 109, 111)
Page 8
48
Pilar Ordóñez López
In order to achieve this form of translation, Ortega claims, it
would be necessary to make ‘divergent translations of the same
work’ (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 111), as it would not be possible to
approximate all the facts of the original text at the same time.
Having presented his conception of translation, Ortega points
out the need to restore the prestige of this activity, and he proposes
that it should be enhanced by recommending its practice to writers.
In general, no writer should denigrate the occupation of trans-
lating, and he should complement his own work with some
version of an ancient, medieval, or contemporary texts. It is
necessary to restore the prestige of this labor and value it as
an intellectual work of the first order. Doing this would con-
vert translating into a discipline sui generis which, cultivated
with continuity would devise its own techniques and would
augment our network of intellectual approaches considerably.
(Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 111-112)
This is an undeniably positive prospect for translation, but it is
only attainable if ‘in translating, we try to leave our language and
go to the other’ (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 112), which is what has
been done in the German translation of his works. This way, the
reader finds him/herself making mental turns that occur naturally
in the source language.
3. Translation Theories
Due to technological progress and the development of interna-
tional relations, the twentieth century can be considered the era of
translation. In the first half of the century, reflection on
translation
received an increasing amount of attention. During this period works
tend to be rooted in a philosophical vision of language, inherited
from German Romanticism. In broad terms, works from the early
Page 9
Ugly translations: Ortega y Gasset’s ideas...
49
twentieth century lack terminological accuracy in their reference
to translation concepts. Only during the second half of the century
did scholars begin to call for a more systematic and descriptive
study of the act of translating.
The interdisciplinary nature of translation, a discipline situated
between languages, cultures and other disciplines such as litera-
ture and linguistics, is reflected in contemporary Translation Stud-
ies. In translation literature, we can find various co-existing ap-
proaches, depending on the different perspectives adopted by schol-
ars in their reflections and on the element of the translation process
they focus on. Hurtado Albir (2001: 125-132) classifies the main
theoretical approaches into five conceptual blocks (2): ‘Linguistic
theories’, ‘Textual theories’, ‘Cognitive theories’, ‘Communica-
tive and Socio-cultural theories’, and ‘Philosophical and Herme-
neutic theories’.
‘Linguistic theories’ are based on the application of a specific lin-
guistic model and the idea that any translation theory should be built
on
a certain theory of language. The two languages involved in every act
of translating are described and compared. Within these theories, dif-
ferent approaches can be distinguished, depending on the linguistic
model applied. Amongst others, authors such as Vinay and Darbelnet,
Catford and Vázquez Áyora can be included within this group.
‘Textual theories’ argue that translation is a textual process and
incorporate into their interpretations of the act of translating
aspects
such as macro-structure, micro-structure, intertextuality, etc., de-
pending on applied taxonomy. Within these theories names such as
Ladmiral, House, Neubert and Hatim and Mason can be highlighted.
‘Cognitive theories’ are those focusing on the analysis of the
mental process made by translators. Within the framework of
psycholinguistics applied to translation, scholars intend to ‘estab-
lish how translators and interpreters process information, both as
distinct from other speakers and writers and as distinct from each
other’ (Bell, 1998: 185). This approach can be found in work by
scholars such as Delisle, Wilss, Kussmaul and Kiraly.
Page 10
50
Pilar Ordóñez López
‘Communicative and Socio-cultural theories’ place the empha-
sis on the communicative function of translations, taking into con-
sideration all contextual aspects surrounding a translation and em-
phasizing the relevance of cultural elements as well as the role of
the translations’ readers. According to Mason, in communicative
and socio-cultural theories ‘the context of situation is crucial and
must include the participants in speech events, the action taking
place and other relevant features’ (Mason, 1998: 29). The transla-
tor should proceed then to make any required adjustment in order
to achieve appropriateness in the different contexts and uses in-
volved. Scholars such as Nida and Taber, Toury, Reiß and
Vermeer, and Nord can be included in the list of those embracing
this approach.
‘Philosophical and Hermeneutic theories’ are those that focus
on the hermeneutic nature of translation and the philosophical as-
pects therein. According to Robinson, these theories involve ‘an
empathic projection of the interpreter’s desire to understand into
the activity s/he is attempting to understand’ (Robinson, 1998: 97).
Hermeneuts, therefore, ‘imagine themselves inside the activity […]
and attempt to describe what they find from within’ (Robinson, 1998,
97). This approach is adopted by Berman, Steiner, Gadamer, Venuti
and Ortega Arjonilla.
4. Ortega in Contemporary Translation Theories
The results obtained in an earlier work (Ordóñez-López, 2006)
provide some background information for this analysis. Ortega’s
essay ‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’ has been considered
by some of the most outstanding scholars to be one of the most
representative examples of reflection on the topic within its period.
At the same time, in the various chronological divisions of the his-
tory of translation theory established by different scholars (Ordóñez-
López, 2006: 196-197, 241-243), Ortega’s work has been described
Page 11
Ugly translations: Ortega y Gasset’s ideas...
51
as a philosophical reflection, characterised by its speculative na-
ture and lack of empirical evidence and specialised terminology.
Taking these results into account, it is only logical to anticipate a
closer connection between Ortega’s views and philosophical and
hermeneutic approaches, while a considerable distance between
his ideas and those developed in linguistic and textual approaches
can be expected. However, it is interesting to explore the impact of
the essay on the main theoretical approaches individually, from the
second half of the twentieth century to the present day.
4.1. Ortega in Linguistic Theories
According to Fawcett (1998: 120), ‘the relationship of linguis-
tics to translation can be twofold: one can apply the findings of
linguistics to the practice of translation, and one can have a
linguis-
tic theory of translation’. The second approach is found in Catford,
who in A Linguistic Theory of Translation, An Essay in Applied Trans-
lation (1965) intends to define translation in terms of a linguistic
theory. In order to provide a fair and accurate interpretation of
Catford’s theory, we must take into consideration the date his work
was published, which was prior to the consolidation of Applied Lin-
guistics. Catford’s work lacks an integrative vision of language,
remaining on the sentence level and thus leaving aside any further
elements embedded in a text, viewed as a unit, in the framework of
communication.
Translation is an operation performed on languages: a process
of substituting a text in one language for a text in another.
(Catford, 1965: 1)
With this definition in mind, Catford’s linguistic theory of trans-
lation is formulated by means of several categorisations in which
he reflects on the different types of translation and the main aspects
therein: full vs. partial translation (1965: 21), total vs. restricted
Page 12
52
Pilar Ordóñez López
translation (1965: 22), rank-bound vs. unbounded translation (1965:
24-25), textual equivalence (1965: 27) vs. formal correspondence
(1965: 27), and substitution vs. transference (1965: 48).
Catford’s theory of translation is based on the abovementioned
categories and concepts, and is characterised by a predominantly
empirical perspective that remains at the sentence level. Further-
more, Catford’s vision of translation is extremely fragmented, as
shown by the detailed divisions applied to the act of translation,
distinguishing between phonological translation (1965: 52), grapho-
logical translation (1965: 63), transliteration (1965: 66) and gram-
matical and lexical translation (1965: 71). All these categories stand
in contrast to the so-called ‘total translation’, which is the most
relevant category regarding our purpose here:
In total translation, the question of “sameness” of situation-
substance is a difficult one, and is linked to the question of
“sameness” or otherwise of the cultures (in the widest and
loosest sense) to which SL and TL belong. (Catford, 1965: 52)
Catford does, however, acknowledge the limits of total transla-
tion. Notwithstanding, these appear to be fairly flexible and inevi-
tably bounded to other non-necessarily linguistic elements, such as
situation or function:
Translation fails – or unstranslatability occurs – when it is
impossible to build functionally relevant features of the situa-
tion into the contextual meaning of the TL text. Broadly speak-
ing, the cases where his happens fall into two categories. Those
where the difficulty is linguistic, and those where it is cul-
tural. (Catford, 1965: 94)
It is obvious that Catford’s views differ considerably from
Ortega’s, especially due to the lack of empirical perspective which
characterises his essay. Nevertheless, despite the totally divergent
Page 13
Ugly translations: Ortega y Gasset’s ideas...
53
perspectives adopted by these two authors, a convergence can be
observed with regard to the aspects they consider to be involved in
the translation process, such as correspondence, equivalence, trans-
fer, translatability, etc. It is also interesting to point out that
almost
forty years later, Catford’s work still lacks a specialised jargon,
though a shift towards a more empirical and descriptive approach –
which would be taken up increasingly from the next decade on-
wards – can already be observed.
4.2. Ortega in Textual Theories
Textual approaches are derived from an empirical perspective
applied to linguistics. In these approaches a practical application of
linguistics to translation has given rise to different categorisations
and taxonomies which are used to describe the process of transla-
tion and the procedures followed by translators, on the basis of the
notion of equivalence.
Scholars working within these approaches intend to demonstrate
the relevance of a componential analysis of translation. More inte-
grative perspectives have progressively been incorporated: word
and phrase level taxonomies have been broadened in order to take
into consideration other relevant and essential aspects such as reg-
ister, discourse or function, i.e. Hatim and Mason (1990, 1997)
and Baker (1992).
As an example of textual approaches, we have selected Ladmiral’s
work, Traduire: Theorèmes pour la traduction (1979). Despite his
textual approach to translation and the chronological gap between
Ladmiral and Ortega’s work, foundational similarities can be found
between them. Ladmiral defines translation as a universal and hu-
man activity, thus adopting a similar starting point as Ortega. With a
more specialised jargon, due to the incorporation of theoretical find-
ings and the consolidation of translation studies as a discipline sui
generis, Ladmiral adopts an unequivocally human perspective. Con-
sequently, his global conception of translation bears a great degree
of
analogy to that provided by Ortega in 1937:
Page 14
54
Pilar Ordóñez López
Non seulement il peut-être difficile d’abstraire la parole de
l’auteur de la langue-source au sein de laquelle elle a trouvé sa
formulation, mais surtout la solidarité de chaque langue avec
tout un contexte culturel fait apparaître la nécessité d’intégrer
à la théorie de la traduction la perspective extra-linguistique
[…]. Dans la pratique la traduction sera bien sûr toujours
partielle. Comme toute acte de communication, elle comportera
un certain degré d’entropie, autrement dit une certaine
déperdition d’information. (Ladmiral, 1979 : 17-19) (4)
Furthermore, Ladmiral reflects on the possibility or impossibil-
ity of translation in this work, analysing the ideas of du Bellay,
Mounin and Meschonnic amongst others. According to Ladmiral,
however, the antagonistic character of translation can be explained
by the deep cleavage between the theoretical and practical sides of
this activity:
Ce ne sont pas les memes personages qui theórisent
(l’impossibilité) et qui traduissent […] Ce clivage est
particulièrement net en traduction […] le prolétariat des
traducteurs «sur le terrain» est maintenu à l’écart de la con-
templation théorique. Cette dernière est l’apanage d’une
aristocratie de linguistes qui philosophent sur la traduction,
dont ils n’ont pas la pratique. (Ladmiral, 1979 : 90) (5)
With these statements in mind, Ladmiral carries out an analysis
of the act of translating, built upon the classical opposition between
denotation and connotation, focusing on the different dimensions of
the latter:
Les connotations constituent un fait linguistique collectif, ni
purement individuel ni non plus totalement général ou universel,
à vrai dire intermédiaire entre la parole et la langue, mais
plus proche de cette dernière. (Ladmiral, 1979 : 145) (6)
Page 15
Ugly translations: Ortega y Gasset’s ideas...
55
Though Ladmiral’s style of writing is more specialized, these
dimensions are already latently present in Ortega’s discussion on
the non-existence of exact synonyms, illustrated by his example of
the German word ‘Wald’ and the Spanish ‘bosque’ (see 2.1.).
A clear divergence, however, can be observed in regard to the
recommended translation procedures proposed by these two au-
thors, in spite of their shared recognition of the relevance of source
language and culture. On the one hand, we have Ortega’s categori-
cal translation proposal, which can be classified as pure
foreignisation; on the other hand, Ladmiral’s attitude reveals a more
flexible and empirical perspective.
[…] le traducteur est conduit à explorer, de proche en proche,
tout un paradigme paraphrastique d’équivalents quasi ou para-
synonymiques, mais c’est pour prendre la mesure des
différences ou des nuances qui les distinguent. En ce cas, les
choix de traductions sont dictés par le sens même du texte-
source et non plus seulement par les contraintes plus ou moins
aléatoires de l’ajustement contextuel coextensive à l’écriture
d’un texte-cible. (Ladmiral, 1979: 169-170) (7)
4.3. Ortega in Cognitive Theories
Translation Studies has traditionally focused on the product, this
is, the translation, rather than on the process of translating itself.
However, with the development of cognitive and psycholinguistic
approaches, the emphasis has shifted to the process of translation.
This shift implies a turn towards an empirical approach to transla-
tion, which is relatively new and aims to establish what goes on in
the translator’s mind while he/she undertakes the task of transla-
tion. Cognitive theories integrate aspects such as understanding,
learning and mental representations, and they have contributed sig-
nificantly to translation training. Most contemporary cognitive theo-
ries analysing the process of translation have been carried out on
Page 16
56
Pilar Ordóñez López
the basis of empirical studies such as the Think Aloud Protocol
(TAPs) methodology.
Kiraly, in his work Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Pro-
cess (1995), adopts a double perspective in his analysis of transla-
tion: first, he considers translation as a social and communicative
activity; secondly, he regards translation as a cognitive activity.
Furthermore, Kiraly intends to relate translation theory to trans-
lation training. He highlights the importance of ‘the development of
the discipline of translation studies for investigation of the
cognitive
processes involved in translation’ (1995: 47). His aim is to investi-
gate how the process of translation and the necessary competences
it involves can be understood, and how they can be manipulated in
order to train more creative, confident and competent translators.
Kiraly’s cognitive model attempts to represent the cognitive sys-
tem which is activated during the process of translation, based on
empirical evidence gleaned from his case studies. His model con-
sists of three main aspects: information sources (1995: 100-105),
intuitive working space, and think control centre. Kiraly postulates
the existence of an intuitive working space, where the information
stored in the short-term memory mixes with the information pro-
vided in the text and the external resources without any conscious
control. Within this working space, two types of products arise: the
draft translation and the translation problems. In target language
control, the subject (or translator), uses the stored rules of the
tar-
get language, contrasting them with the elements of the draft trans-
lation in terms of their syntactic adequacy and semantic accuracy.
Translation problems arise within the intuitive working space when
the automatic processing does not produce any provisional transla-
tion for certain elements.
This model is accompanied by Kiraly’s case study, using a TAPs
methodology, which consists of an introspective technique accord-
ing to which the studied subjects are asked to translate a text and
utter simultaneously everything that goes on in their minds while
they are translating.
Page 17
Ugly translations: Ortega y Gasset’s ideas...
57
Ortega’s views on translation lie far from current cognitive ap-
proaches. Ortega’s description of the translator as ‘a shy character
[…] facing an enormous controlling apparatus, composed of gram-
mar and common usage [who] will be ruled by cowardice’ (Ortega
y Gasset, 1992: 94) has now been surmounted by the conception of
the translator as an active and operative agent in the process of
translation, whose mental activity while translating conveys rel-
evant information to the improvement of translation training and
therefore, ultimately, the quality of translations.
4.4. Ortega in Communicative and Socio-cultural theories
In communicative and socio-cultural approaches, the focus lies
on the specific situation in which the text or translation is embed-
ded. At the same time, the situation is regarded as an integrative
part of a specific society or culture. Language must, thus, be con-
sidered part of a culture. Within this approach, the Skopos Theory
(Skopostheorie) has played an outstanding and leading role. This
theory is built upon concepts such as skopos (purpose), equivalence/
adequacy, function, culture and text-type. With Möglichkeiten und
Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik (1971), Katharina Reiß (3) made a
significant contribution to translation studies by proposing a new
model of translation based on the functional relationship between
source and target texts, and developing a text typology that takes
into account not only the subject matter but also the function of the
particular text type (1971: 32).
Skopos Theory offers an alternative to traditional translation theo-
ries. Reiß and Vermeer, in Grundlegung einer allgemeinen
Translationstheorie (1984), explain the key aspects of their transla-
tion model. With a philosophical foundation, language is consid-
ered an instrument of knowledge on the one hand and on the other
hand, a communicative and social instrument, integrated on sev-
eral levels. The Skopos Theory is based on the following rules:
Page 18
58
Pilar Ordóñez López
1. A TT is determined by its Skopos
2. A TT is an offer of information in a TC and TL concerning an
offer of information in a SC and SL
3. A TT is not clearly reversible
4. A TT must be internally coherent
5. A TT must be coherent with the ST
According to the Skopos Theory, what translators should do is
produce texts that are at least likely to be meaningful to the target
readers; therefore, a translation can only be regarded as success-
ful if the reader is able to understand it and regard it as coherent
with his/her situation.
Departing from tradition as well as from other approaches that
consider translation a more systematic activity, this approach pre-
sumes that the same text can be translated in different ways, de-
pending on the communicative function of the target text. This ech-
oes Ortega’s recommendation to produce ‘divergent translations of
the same work’ (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 111), since it is impossible
to approach all dimensions of the texts as the same time, as Ortega
implies. In general, communicative and socio-cultural approaches
bear a certain degree of similarity to Ortega’s ideas, as they incor-
porate some theoretical and communicative aspects tackled by the
philosopher, although there is a clear divergence regarding the way
these aspects are dealt with in 20
th
century translation literature.
Despite the many differences existing between the dominant func-
tional approaches and Ortega’s ideas, such as the empirical dimen-
sion, the use of a specialised terminology and the active role of the
translator, it is important to note the fundamental role played by
function in Ortega’s views on translation. According to his vision,
the main purpose of translation is to re-educate people on the basis
of Roman and Greek ancient civilisations. His categorical proposal
of foreignising translation can primarily be understood an extreme
attempt to achieve this, as it is only through foreignising
translation
that readers can gain a genuine understanding of those civilisations,
appreciate differences and learn from them.
Page 19
Ugly translations: Ortega y Gasset’s ideas...
59
4.5. Ortega in Philosophical and Hermeneutic theories
As previously mentioned, it is only natural to expect a closer
connection between Ortega’s ideas on translation and philosophical
and hermeneutic approaches. Hermeneutic theories enable the trans-
lator to approach the text from where he/she stands, rather than
from the position of the original author; as the hermeneutic notion
of translation begins with the translator’s understanding of the text,
there is no meaning without understanding.
One of the authors most representative of hermeneutic approaches
is Steiner with his work After Babel: Aspects of Language and Trans-
lation (1977). As a hermeneut, Steiner aims to explore translation
from the inside, and he integrates recent work on translation with
views taken from German Romanticism.
From the very beginning, it is impossible to ignore the parallels
between Steiner’s and Ortega’s perspectives. This parallelism is
especially obvious with regards to the view that translation is an
activity which is implicit in every act of speech. Steiner argues that
translation, understood as the interpretation of verbal or written
signs in one language by means of verbal or written signs in an-
other, is an accentuated case of the process of communication;
thus a ‘theory of translation’ is necessarily a theory of language.
The model “sender to receiver” which represents any semio-
logical and semantic process is ontologically equivalent to the
model “source-language to receptor-language” used in the
theory of translation. (Steiner, 1992: 49) (8)
However, Steiner’s explanation contains a more elaborate analy-
sis both regarding the aspects involved and the terminology. Ele-
ments such as time (regarded as a chronological influence), soci-
ety (regarded as a cultural influence) and personal speech play an
essential role in Steiner’s views on translation. Following these
considerations, Steiner begins his analysis of translation by taking
language as the starting point. Language is conceived as gnosis, as
Page 20
60
Pilar Ordóñez López
a social, historical and personal phenomenon. In his analysis, Steiner
acknowledges the fundamental role of silence; this represents an-
other point of overlap with Ortega’s ideas:
In actual speech all but a small class of definitional or “unre-
flective-response” sentences are surrounded, mutely ramified,
blurred by an immeasurably dense, individualized field of in-
tention and withholding […] Human speech conceal far more
than it confides; it blurs much more than it defines, it dis-
tances more than it connects. (Steiner, 1992: 240)
Steiner also reflects on the possibility of translation, quoting
Ortega’s declaration of impossibility. Despite this quote, he adopts
a more optimistic position, as the ‘impossible is overcome at every
moment in human affairs’ (Steiner, 1992: 264), so that there are no
practical implications. Furthermore, according to Steiner, the fo-
cus should be shifted from the impossibility itself to the ‘degree of
fidelity to be pursed in each case’ (Steiner, 1992: 264).
Steiner’s views on translation are presented using a similar ap-
proach to that of ‘Misery and the Splendour of Translation’. Nev-
ertheless, Steiner’s hermeneutic conception of translation is pre-
sented by means of a detailed description of the translation act in
terms of hermeneutic motion, consisting of four progressing stages:
trust, penetration, embodiment and restitution (Steiner, 1992: 312-
320). In broad terms, Steiner presents a hermeneutic model which
is applied to translation, whereas Ortega’s reflections remain less
specific level, the application of hermeneutics to language at a more
general level.
Despite the theoretical character of his work, Steiner’s ap-
proach to translation maintains a closer relation to the practice of
translation than that of Ortega. This can be appreciated in Steiner’s
discussion about what is ‘perfect’ in translation and how to deal
with the attainment of this perfection in the practical context of
translation.
Page 21
Ugly translations: Ortega y Gasset’s ideas...
61
A “perfect” act of translation would be one of total synonym-
ity. It would presume an interpretation so precisely exhaus-
tive as to leave no single unit in the source text –phonetic,
grammatical, semantic, contextual- out of complete account,
and yet so calibrated as to have added nothing in the way of
paraphrase, explication or variant. But we know that in prac-
tice this perfect fit is possible neither at the stage or interpre-
tation nor at that of linguistic transfer and restatement […].
(Steiner, 1992: 428)
5. Conclusion
The consolidation of Translation Studies as an academic disci-
pline has led to the development of a more empirical framework of
theoretical approaches to translation, focusing more on the practi-
cal context of translation than on reflection of a more philosophical
nature.
Similarly, issues which provoked continued controversy during
earlier, philosophically oriented stages, such as the oppositions be-
tween literal and free translation and translatability vs.
untranslatability, seem to have been overcome.
Current translation studies benefit from the development of other,
related disciplines such as psycholinguistics and other cognitive
sciences, which have allowed for a more in-depth analysis of the
translation process. As a result of this, the role of the translator
has
become a considerably more active one, as reflected in the ap-
proaches to translation analysed in this study.
Nevertheless, Ortega’s views on translation are still relevant
within current Translation Studies, not only because some of the
aspects he discussed have been further developed, but also because
it is necessary to understand the historical dimension of the disci-
pline. Although Ortega’s proposals in favour of foreignisation and
Page 22
62
Pilar Ordóñez López
ugly translations has not been adopted in current theories, Ortega’s
approach to translation bears considerable resemblance to some of
the most representative names in translation literature. It is also
important to note the varying degree of relevance of his essay de-
pending on the specific approach.
This study reveals an uneven picture in terms of the influence of
Ortega’s views on the different translation approaches, but it is
nevertheless clear that ‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’ has,
amongst other classical works, made a noticeable contribution to
the creation of a solid foundation for the subsequent development of
Translation Studies
Dmitry
> Tadas Blinda wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 4:57 pm, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
> >>> have to change the way you think.
> >> As soon as I started thinking in English I found conversation in
> >> Russian more and more difficult. Understanding is not a problem, but
> >> translating my thoughts in order to answer back. Everyone in scb
> >> speaks more than one language, does anyone think in two or more
> >> languages? Just curious, is it just me - a monolingual "thinker"?
> >> Sorry for OT.
>
> >>> VM.
>
> > I think in both Lithuanian and English, sometimes with bits of French
> > or Spanish or even something else drifting through my thoughts.
>
> > I think it's easy to overstate the amount of influence our particular
> > language has on the way we think. I don't accept Vlad's contention
> > that English is "more precise" than Russian (or some other language).
> > It's all in the way an individual uses language.
>
> Just look at vocabulary - Russian is much more "poor". Besides it is
> very "young" - remember the first real literature in Russian did not
> show up before the XIX cent.
> I read some pieces from XVIIIth cent - I hardly can understand them.
Similarly it is difficult to understand XVII cent English.
>
> Try to figure out these words from XVIII cent Russian sailors song:
> "Burya More Razdymayet".
Something to do with waves?
>
> And when Russian was just learning how to walk English already had a
> "history".
> Pushkin and Gogol gave a birth to Russian as we know it today.
> I am a native speaker - but reading "Slovo o polku Igoreve" I miss up to
> 80%. They still argue up to fist fight what the hell means the very
> opening - was it a figure of speech or literal depiction.
> What I am trying to say - there were "many" Russian languages. They are
> connected but you must be a professional to see it. E.g. - try to read a
> Bible in Russian - incomprehensible for me.
I never had problem with reading Bible in Russian. It is old, but not
that old. Church Slavonic is more difficult to read.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
That can be easily cured: spi s perevodchitcami. (sleep with female
interpretors).
Vladimir Makarenko
Yeah and in the morning to be found out?
I have an idea about suicide but not that cruel. I think she would
vandalize my coffin too.
But beyond that - how they interpretors would know from what to what
language to translate if I don't have a clue?
VM.