“More or less the same thing in different words“ - challenges for translators from Nuremberg

Literal or analogous translations, that is the question!

With the birth of the field of translation, a problem immediately arose: How much could a translation deviate from the original text? In ancient times, translation was used as a grammar exercise to master the structures and vocabulary of foreign languages. For this reason, the tendency was to produce as literal a translation as possible. However, this led to misunderstandings between cultures or grammatical errors due to the different language structures. This is precisely what Cicero deals with in his book “De optimo genere oratorum, in which he distinguishes between “interpres (translator) and “orator (speaker). His aim was to translate non ut interpres, sed ut orator (not like a translator, but like an orator). The interpres limited themselves to translating the text literally into the target language without making the necessary cultural adaptations. In this way, Cicero aims to differentiate between literal and analogous translations, favouring the latter because, in his opinion, a text should convince, inspire and move the reader.

St Jerome later dealt with the same topic. In the face of the accusation of having created a falsified translation of the Bible, he justified his actions by stating that the purpose of translation is not to translate literally, but to convey the meaning (Verbum e verbo sed sensum exprimere de sensu).

The problem of literal translation should not be ignored, as it has led to debates and disputes throughout history. A well-known example is Luther’s proposed translation of the Bible and the outrage of the Catholic Church that ensued. In the “Open Letter on Interpreting” (1530), Luther explained his opposition to literal translation: “For we mustn’t ask the letters in the Latin language how German should be spoken, as these donkeys do, but we must ask the mother at home, children in the street, the ordinary man in the market-place, watch them mouth their words, and translate accordingly. That way they’ll understand it and realize that we’re speaking with them in German.”

Walter Benjamin formulated it even more drastically: a literal translation is impossible, because “all words contain a complete chain of culturally determined metonymic associations” (Benjamin 1923/2000). A literal translation is therefore deceptive: In fact, it does not offer the fidelity to the original that it seems to promise. A closer look reveals that even supposedly universal terms such as “family” are understood differently in different cultures: How many people are there in a German family? And how many in Italian families?

Babel: Punishment or opportunity for interpreters and translators?

“The spirit of a language reveals itself most clearly in its untranslatable words” (Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach). From the earliest times, linguistic diversity has been seen as a punishment. The biblical Babel symbolises the banishment from the paradise of a single language, from the paradise of communication free of language barriers. In this way, language becomes the expression of an irreconcilable difference in worldviews. Nobody will ever be able to translate the exact same concepts into another language, because every language corresponds to its respective culture. Nevertheless, the question remains: What if Babel were not a punishment, but rather an opportunity to express the countless facets of reality? We at AP Fachübersetzungen at Fürther Str. 94 in Nuremberg are convinced of the latter and we do our best to offer you excellent translations, for example, in the fields of law or medicine.

Are you looking for professional translators who think outside the box? Contact us – we will find the right solution for your language challenge!

Image: Patrick Tomasso, unsplash.com