Ever since the beginnings of interlinguistic reproduction work as a communication tool between different communities around the world, a lot has been written about the most appropriate approach to translating and correctly transmitting the meaning of source material to the target culture. In fact, the study into different translation strategies continues today, assessing the impact that they can have on each text and the situations in which they are used. The most widespread debate essentially focuses on using a more literal translation style compared to a freer translation style, resulting in very different texts, that is to say, two translated versions with very few similarities between them, despite the fact that, in theory, each of these styles has advantages that make them more suitable for certain situations. That said, what do we mean by literal or free approach?
The literal approach has been the most popular throughout history. At its inception, this approach posited that the closer a translation is to the original form, the more faithful it is both syntactically and lexicologically. The basis of this idea is that the risk of making mistakes is lower if the translator does not depart from the original words and structures. However, time has shown that this idea, when taken to the extreme, may not be the most appropriate. If we stop to analyze different languages, we will quickly see that not all of them follow the same syntactic structure, that direct equivalences between source and target terms may be true but are not commonly used, that there are units of meaning belonging to a language that do not have a cultural equivalent in the target language, among many more. This leads to the risk that a very literal translator may produce a corrupt version in which syntactic calques are predominant, making the translation awkward and where faithfulness in reproducing idiomatic source ideas and concepts results in the meaning being incorrectly reproduced. This has been the case since the dawn of translation history in Afro-Eurasia, which focused mainly on translating biblical texts to bring sacred texts closer to the people, thereby increasing conversions. As is to be expected, this has given rise to endless speculation since, due to their very nature, biblical texts are full of symbolism, metaphors and connotations. So, if we presume that a lot of this material was translated literally, it is likely that there are translation errors that we have culturally inherited and assimilated that persist until today. However, a more moderate literal translation is popular among those who consider that the best translation is that which reproduces the original meaning modifying the original elements as little as possible to preserve its essence.
Nevertheless, time has shown that expressions that are natural and conventional in one language are not in another language. This means that a literal translation that respects the original syntax and lexicon would not always accurately reproduce the overall message. In fact, while literal translation was also referred to as “word-for-word translation”, freer translation that sought to solve these equivalence problems was known as “meaning-for-meaning translation”. This new approach was based on the idea that when we communicate, we do so using units of meaning, which are made up of words, phrases, texts, etc., but the importance lies in transmitting an idea, a thought or even drawing inferences. Therefore, this mode of translation seeks to find a cultural equivalence in the target language, or in other words, identify how the target audience will best interpret the message and how they will feel closer to it. To do so, the translator aims to make the translation seem like a source text written directly in the target language, which is similar to that of the source.
All these theoretical concepts have a practical application in the current context of language services since, during translation, the most appropriate approach must be considered depending on the requirements of the text.
The current outlook essentially considers the need to adapt the translation approach to the needs of the project in its context of use; although, there is a tendency to produce more moderate literal translations that solve the idiomatic problems through freer approaches. As a result, there are texts that can be almost completely reproduced literally since they use a more technical style (where phrases are syntactically more reproducible) and the information is presented without connotations that need to be adapted to the local culture. Furthermore, there are texts for which literal translation does not create the same impact for the target culture and, as such, require a greater creative effort. This means that the translator will have to find a dynamic equivalent and think about how much of the source material should be preserved. As a result, we find a more literal approach in technical, scientific and legal translation, which ensures the exact translation of the source content so that no unintended interpretations arise. Conversely, marketing and artistic creation is where reformulations must be used to create a similar impact and not merely translate the words.
In this way, knowing the appropriateness of a free translation verses a literal translation will help us tackle each project using the most appropriate approach to successfully meet its needs.
Ref. de la imagen: https://www.wallpaperflare.com/brain-heart-creativity-art-and-craft-multi-colored-no-people-wallpaper-pklin
