Content navigation: table of contents - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7

What is a perfect translation?

First of all, the question actually is not 'What is a perfect translation?' but rather, 'Is there such a thing as a perfect translation?'

This question is fairly simple to answer – and the answer is No!

A 'perfect translation' would just be a correct translation which appears to be perfect on the level of subjective perception (in the eye of the beholder).

We often find – in connection with literary translations, for example – several different translations by professional translators into the same target language, and this can lead to heated discussions about the quality of the work.

It can actually be quite confusing if a prospective customer submits a sample text to several translators, perhaps with a view to awarding a major commission, and then gets served up with six or seven or even more very different translations based on the identical source.

So which translation should he then choose?

In a case of doubt, obviously the best!

But which one is the best?

In order to answer this question, we must first of all ask another one – what do we expect, or what should one expect from a good translation?

At first glance, the answer seems quite straightforward: it must reproduce the original text in the target language as exactly as possible.

But this prompts yet another question: how do I picture the work of a translator, what is my conception of the way in which a translation is created?

Theoretically the obvious way to create an accurate translation would consist in simply taking each word of the source text, substituting the appropriate term in the target language and then lining them up in the correct order.

Unfortunately this idea has nothing to do with the reality of language – as we can easily convince ourselves if we take a look at the countless examples of automated translation programs and gratis translation services that are to be found on the internet.
No two languages are so close to one another in the semantics, the arrangement of linguistic elements and the selection of grammatical forms that it would be possible to convert one into the other by translating just word for word.

Because of these serious linguistic barriers, no translation software to date has been able to render a complex text correctly, elegantly and with an adequate command of style into another language – quite apart from the other difficulties that may occur when the text has to be adapted to a foreign culture.

In view of all these problems, a good translation is still very much the product of manual labour and human intelligence.

Nor does the translator just consult his dictionary or his grammar so as to come up with a word-for-word translation.

Let us take a translation from English into German as an example. Unless we want it to come out sounding 'somehow English', it is essential that the translator should not just understand the language as a formal system and set of grammatical rules. There is more involved here.

This shows that the translator must not just be grammatically competent – he must also have a broad base of social and cultural knowledge. This is because background knowledge and social implications frequently have an effect on the interpretation and the understanding, even more than the language as such – often more than sounds, words and expressions.

Every translator is involved in a complicated process of mediation between the language of the original text and the target language, coupled with the cultural differences of the 'target country' for which he is translating.

Without a proper acknowledgement of the laws of the target language, a good translation will be impossible.

So what can the customer expect from a good translation?

-	The translation should reflect all the elements of the source text in a way that is true to the original.
-	It should be based on the intention of the author of the original document.
-	The intellectual content must be fully retained in the target language – without any watering down, without reservations, but also without being reinforced or expanded.
-	It should be written in a style that is just as natural and easy to understand as the original.

A good translator always works with the aim of eliciting the objective of the text he works with, so as to be able to retain the message and the style of the original in the target language.

The authors of the original texts wanted to be understood. So they wrote in a clear and comprehensible style, as well as having regard to the cultural context in which they found themselves.

And this should be the criterion for the translator as well.

But this ideal is not so easy to realise, in view of the fact that in doubtful cases we may find ourselves separated from the original authors by a distance that should not be underestimated – the differences between the languages first of all, not to speak of the cultural and local differences.

In many cases, therefore, it is not enough for the translator just to read and understand the original documents – he must also take pains to come to terms with these differences, with the help of research and analysis, and if necessary bridge them over in his translation.

So we find that our translator is faced with the difficult question of how far he wants to meet the customer halfway in circumnavigating these oppositions. The question can be answered in two quite different ways.

On the one side we find the view that the translator is obliged to follow the exact and formal wording of the original as far as possible, and only resort to approximations when absolutely necessary.

As we might expect, the other point of view is the exact opposite: here the principal focus is on the aim of providing the customer with a text that is as easy to understand as can be managed. This endows a text with maximum accessibility.
At the same time, it must be said, it involves the customer's surrendering the formulation of the text and the determination of the sense to the translator – to a certain extent, at least.

It would be irresponsible at this point to lay down the law as to which of these two approaches to translation is preferable. It is rather a matter for the customer to decide – following consultation with all those who are involved with the creation and publication of the text – which of the two forms of translation he favours.

In either scenario, however, we can be sure of one thing: the original text must be interpreted – that is to say, it must be capable of being understood, in the target language, in its full significance.

The question, though, is this – does the customer want to be more or less the sole judge, by insisting on adherence to the original, or does he expect the translator to point him the way in cases of doubt?

In this connection it may be helpful to look at two examples – both involving situations where decisions need to be made.

In the case of a product presentation, where people are often confronted with information about the product for the first time – and their ideas about it may well be hazy or even non-existent – there can be no doubt that it is essential that the language should be natural, flowing and easy to understand, both in the original text and in the translation.

Here a freer translation can really be the best solution, taking into account the rudimentary product knowledge of the audience.

Of course the translator does not have the task of writing a commentary on the product or concocting an independent PR document; nor should he adapt the odd passage to his own understanding of the matter or to his own personal taste.

But he does have a certain stylistic latitude, which permits him to choose a wording that is easier to understand in the target language or target culture – consequently, in collaboration with the customer, he can try to rephrase statements that are out of key with the Zeitgeist, so as to make them more acceptable, and easier to understand, for the target audience.

When it comes to the translation of contracts, product leaflets or technical instruction manuals, of course, this kind of freedom is no longer possible.
With texts of this kind, it is not the naturalness of the translation, but the accuracy that counts.

In documents where safety is a consideration, a close connection to the original – and so to the underlying standards and regulations – is indispensable.
In such cases, the translator must base his work – unless the customer has provided any other kind of criterion – on the veridical content of the original text.
His task here is not to reinterpret the text, but to use the resources of language to render it clearly, comprehensibly and as accurately as possible.

So what kind of translation is the best, from the customer's point of view?

As you can see from these two examples, only the customer, unfortunately, is in a position to answer that question.
Depending on the nature of the document and the customer's interests, the answer can turn out quite differently.

The ideal situation, undoubtedly, is one where everybody who is involved in the creation and publication of the text is able to participate in such decisions.
And this applies first and foremost to the corporate departments that have formulated the original text.

In our two examples we might have to do with the legal division of a company, or with employees from the marketing or sales department.
With the help of the translator's contribution – comprising his estimate of the target market and the local colour of the country in question – it should be possible to ensure that the translation is in line with the customer's aims.

Finally, a word of warning for companies commissioning a translation. It is rarely the case that customers go to the lengths of having a competent proof-reader in the company – one who can look over the translation, form a qualified judgment and even perhaps improve it. Most often translations are edited by employees who are insufficiently familiar with the target language, of which their command may be quite rudimentary.

Their lack of linguistic ability can rapidly convert a good translation into a poor one. So if the customer should be thinking of asking for his money back, it would be advisable to make contact with the translator at the earliest possible stage, so as to avoid the possibility of misunderstanding. Frequently what is involved is just a matter of stylistic issues, where the proof-reader's cavils would not hold good in a court of law.

If the customer and the translator get into a dialogue early on, it can save time and money.

Whereas in questions of translation style, as we have seen, there can be a great variety of opinion as to what should be regarded as appropriate and correct, this is much less the case for issues of grammar and spelling (even if, as a result of the German spelling reform, many obligatory rules have since become optional ones).
In translations that are to be used for important purposes of business or personal communication, not only should all grammatical and orthographic mistakes be avoided – they should not include any linguistic infelicities or awkwardnesses either.
In a professional context an impeccable linguistic presentation can be expected. If the customer gets a translation of his product leaflet or presentation that is peppered with spelling mistakes, he has every right to complain.

It is important, in this kind of situation, to lodge a complaint at the earliest opportunity. In their General Terms and Conditions of Business translators usually refer to a deadline of 7 to 14 days for making a complaint.

Previous chapter | Next chapter