Translation as Gunilla Anderman Puts

Translation

As Gunilla Anderman puts it, "language has never been considered as important as literature" in academic circles. There is a perceived hierarchical relationship between language and literature, namely that language is a vehicle for literature. While literature depends on language, language is merely a tool and has no internal aesthetic or even value. This dichotomy has led to a binary opposition between literary translation vs. literary interpretation. The translation is viewed as the mundane and pedestrian activity; the interpretation is perceived as the more complex activity requiring in-depth semantic mastery. Daniel Gile argues that there may be no "fundamental difference between literary translators and non-literary translators." Gile essentially disparages the false hierarchy between texts labeled literature and those that are not.

Peter Newmark denies the relevance of the dichotomy between literary translation and literary interpretation, noting that it is a false dichotomy. Yet in criticizing this dichotomy, Newmark presents yet another false opposition between "interpretation in general and non-literary translation." He states, " "Literary translation is concerned with the mind or imagination, whilst non-literary translation is about the world, extralinguistic reality." Non-literary translation is concerned with nothing but "factual truth," whereas literature has a loftier goal of "aesthetic truth," and he adds, "unless it's trivial literature but that's another matter." Newmark clearly admits his academic snobbery when it comes to determining what texts are classified as literature and what texts are not, and that the act of translating or interpreting texts is constricted by the perceived quality or academic merit of those texts.

There is, therefore, a politics of translation or a politics of linguistics. As Fraser puts it, it is a matter of hierarchies, of different types of translation and interpretation and where they fit into the canon of academic research and practical application. There are completely different perceptions of professions that are related to either translation or interpretation. Fraser, for example, claims that there is an upper echelon of translators occupied by the literary translators and the conference interpreters. Yet conference interpreter Anne Pearce emphatically disagrees. Pearce claims that there is nothing glamorous about conference interpretation, which is viewed as being the work of a "multilingual secretary."

The dichotomies between translation and interpretation, between literary translation and literary interpretation, cannot be denied, though. Even if they become political arguments related to power, hierarchy, and social class status, these arguments reveal the complexities inherent in translating works of literature. Poetry perhaps presents the most serious problems related to literary interpretation. Most poetry cannot be translated in the same way a tourist brochure can be translated, line for line, concept for concept. The interpreter must have a full mastery of the language to the point of understanding its metaphors and the subconscious minds of the people inhabiting that culture at a particular point in time. Literature does have a qualitatively different need when it is being translated; it must be interpreted so that the semantics match the new language. The interpreter captures the essence of the original text and cloaks it with new language, preserving as best as possible the intention and meaning -- insofar as that preservation is even possible. However, the difference between literary and non-literary interpretation does not necessarily imply a hierarchy. There is no need to imply that literary interpretation is qualitatively more important, or more worthy of research than non-literary translation or even literary translation as opposed to literary interpretation. As Zlateva points out, the theory is different from the practice anyway: "Nobody expects literary theory to teach people how to write novels or poems but, for some reason, a lot of people seem to think that translation theory is for teaching translators how to translate."