criticism
NOTES ON TRANSLATION CRITICISM sources: House ‘Quality’, House Model, Newmark Textbook
A criticism of a translation is different from a review of a translation.
Review = comment on new translations, description and evaluation as to whether they are worth reading and buying
Criticism = a broader activity, analysis in detail, evaluating old and new translations , assuming that readers know the translation
Translation criticism should take into account all the factors and elements in the process of translation (translation as a communicative act: intention, function, text tupe, register, strategies, principles, rules, constraints, audience)
It comprises activities which are part of the process of translation (analysis and interpretation of the ST), but it is different from the forms of criticism involved in this process Translation criticism should not be a mere identification of errors, an intuitive or highly subjective appraisal judging translations as ‘good’, ‘bad’. ‘faithful’ without qualifying these adjectives.
Similarly, reviews should
-describe the quality of a translation with more than a single adjective and
- refrain from trashing the translator’s work on the basis of isolated errors
Criticisim of translation quality should be grounded on thorough analysis and description
Some critics prefer to eschew value judgements, prefer not to proclaim one translation better than another (Hatim and Mason 1990b: 1)
More concern with understanding how translated texts work (rather than with traditional cponcepts of quality) and seek to define the translator’s method (Vilikovsky) and purpose (Newmark: 1998: 75)
There is discussion about whether evaluation should take into account the Source Text :
Toury notes that comparisons between translations and originals often lead to an enumeration of errors and a reverence for the original (1978: 26)
Most critics carry out a comparative criticism of original and translation
• Newmark (Textbook):
A criticism of a translation is different from a review of a translation.
Review = comment on new translations, description and evaluation as to whether they are worth reading and buying
Criticism = a broader activity, analysis in detail, evaluating old and new translations , assuming that readers know the translation
Translation criticism should take into account all the factors and elements in the process of translation (translation as a communicative act: intention, function, text tupe, register, strategies, principles, rules, constraints, audience)
It comprises activities which are part of the process of translation (analysis and interpretation of the ST), but it is different from the forms of criticism involved in this process Translation criticism should not be a mere identification of errors, an intuitive or highly subjective appraisal judging translations as ‘good’, ‘bad’. ‘faithful’ without qualifying these adjectives.
Similarly, reviews should
-describe the quality of a translation with more than a single adjective and
- refrain from trashing the translator’s work on the basis of isolated errors
Criticisim of translation quality should be grounded on thorough analysis and description
Some critics prefer to eschew value judgements, prefer not to proclaim one translation better than another (Hatim and Mason 1990b: 1)
More concern with understanding how translated texts work (rather than with traditional cponcepts of quality) and seek to define the translator’s method (Vilikovsky) and purpose (Newmark: 1998: 75)
There is discussion about whether evaluation should take into account the Source Text :
Toury notes that comparisons between translations and originals often lead to an enumeration of errors and a reverence for the original (1978: 26)
Most critics carry out a comparative criticism of original and translation
• Newmark (Textbook):