WORDS IN THEIR CONTEXT

All the same, we do translate words, because there is nothing else to translate; there are only the words on the page; there is nothing else there. We do not translate isolated words, we translate words all more or less (and sometimes less rather than more, but never not at all) bound by their syntactic, collocational, situational, cultural and individual idiolectal contexts. That is one way of looking at transla- tion, which suggests it is basically lexical. This is not so. The basic thought- carrying element of language is its grammar. But since the grammar is expressed only in words, we have to get the words right. The words must stretch and give only if the thought is threatened.

I am not making any plea for literal or one-to-one translation, since, if it is translationese (and there is far too much translationese published), it is wrong. But the re-creative part of translation is often exaggerated, and the literal part under- estimated, particularly in literary translation, but also in other types of texts which have nothing linguistically wrong with them, which are competently written.

Take the following extracts from an advertisement by Bendicks Ltd, where we might expect the widest divergences:

(1A) 'B are a unique confection, often copied, never equalled.' (IB) B sont de confection unique, souvent imites maisjamais egales,

(1C) / cioccolatini B sono un prodotto senza eguale spesso imitato, mai eguagliato. ( 1D) B ist ein einzigartiger Konfekt, der oft nachgeahmt aber nie nachgemacht warden ist.

(2A) 'Blended together they provide a very distinctive and widely appreciated example of the chocolatier's art.'

(2B) Ce melange est I'exemple tres distingue et largement apprecie de /'art du chocolatier.

(2C) La lorofusione e un perfetto esempio dell'arte distintiva e vastamente apprezzata del cioccolatiere.

(2D) - ein ausgezeichnetes und weithin geschdtztes Beispiel fachlichen Konnens.

One notices first how close these translations are; and they could even be closer, being in some cases elegant (and unnecessary) variations on the original, which is presumably English (e.g., mais in IB; senza eguale in 1C, which is blurred by mai eguagliato). Secondly, syntactical changes in the translation appear to be precipitated by the lack of a suitable word for 'blend'. Again, as German cannot risk chocolatier (a pity), it has recourse to the more generic fachlich ('professional'). German also introduces an effective word-play (nachgeahmt, nachgemacht) which alters and improves the sense of the English. (Nachmachen means both 'to make up'

and 'to copy'; there is word-play with nachahmen.)