On translation editing, part 2...
Jul. 28th, 2001 10:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpFellow LJer ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bsgi asks, based on my previous post:
Improving readability is subsumed mostly by the second category I formulated (categories 3 and 4 fit too, but to a much lesser extent). For example, if a translator submits work that betrays an unnatural tendency to overuse the passive voice, e.g. "the man was bitten by the dog," it might make sense to recast such sentences, if time permits. (If time does not permit, one must at least make sure that the dog and man are the participants, that the dog is biting, and the man is being bitten, i.e., make sure there's no first-category errors in the translation.)
In the final analysis, though, a typical edit of a translation does not involve the same level of intervention as does, say, editing an article to be published in something like The New Yorker. This is explained, by the way, by the rather broad continuum of what constitutes "editing," distinguished primarily by the authority the editor has to make changes in whatever text is being edited.
At the bottom end, for example, proofreaders typically have authority only to correct the most striking errors (punctuation, misspellings, and so on that are typically introduced during typesetting); they may not raise issues of fact or matters of style. At the top end, you have editors who are, in some cases, more famous than the authors whose work is edited, who can and often do rewrite text, and who may make "suggestions" to an author that must be heeded, if the author is to be published. Translation editing is closer to the lower end of the spectrum.
There is, however, another aspect to readability that is almost unique to translation, and that lies in the answer to the question: should a translation be more readable than the original? (In fact, a colleague of mine advertises his service with the tag line to that effect.)
My take on this aspect of the craft is no, translations should not attempt to improve upon the original, though there are limits. If the original is filled with typos and poor grammar, run-on sentences, lack of parallelism, and so on, the translation should, obviously, not follow suit (though a footnote, directed at the client, mentioning such shortcomings may not be out of place).
On the other hand, if the thinking expressed in the text is turgid, if the author's logic is flawed, or if the overall presentation is lackluster, the translator cannot - must not - attempt to make the text more "readable." To attempt to do so may likely introduce something into the target text that was not in the original.
Hmmm. I do have a tendency to ramble on, don't I. Sorry if this is more of a reply than you asked for, but it just kinda came out.
Cheers...
bsgi asks, based on my previous post:I would think that there is another category of editing that does not fit neatly into the four you have listed.This is an important point, and I've escalated both the question and my response here to my "main" journal, as it is essentially a continuation of my previous musings.
One is to rewrite to IMPROVE READABILITY. This improves the chances that the "correct" message is perceived by the reader. This is certainly an improvement, but not the correction of major or minor errors. It is a rewording but one that is the appropriate purview of an editor, in conjunciton with an author. Should this be a fifth category?
Improving readability is subsumed mostly by the second category I formulated (categories 3 and 4 fit too, but to a much lesser extent). For example, if a translator submits work that betrays an unnatural tendency to overuse the passive voice, e.g. "the man was bitten by the dog," it might make sense to recast such sentences, if time permits. (If time does not permit, one must at least make sure that the dog and man are the participants, that the dog is biting, and the man is being bitten, i.e., make sure there's no first-category errors in the translation.)
In the final analysis, though, a typical edit of a translation does not involve the same level of intervention as does, say, editing an article to be published in something like The New Yorker. This is explained, by the way, by the rather broad continuum of what constitutes "editing," distinguished primarily by the authority the editor has to make changes in whatever text is being edited.
At the bottom end, for example, proofreaders typically have authority only to correct the most striking errors (punctuation, misspellings, and so on that are typically introduced during typesetting); they may not raise issues of fact or matters of style. At the top end, you have editors who are, in some cases, more famous than the authors whose work is edited, who can and often do rewrite text, and who may make "suggestions" to an author that must be heeded, if the author is to be published. Translation editing is closer to the lower end of the spectrum.
There is, however, another aspect to readability that is almost unique to translation, and that lies in the answer to the question: should a translation be more readable than the original? (In fact, a colleague of mine advertises his service with the tag line to that effect.)
My take on this aspect of the craft is no, translations should not attempt to improve upon the original, though there are limits. If the original is filled with typos and poor grammar, run-on sentences, lack of parallelism, and so on, the translation should, obviously, not follow suit (though a footnote, directed at the client, mentioning such shortcomings may not be out of place).
On the other hand, if the thinking expressed in the text is turgid, if the author's logic is flawed, or if the overall presentation is lackluster, the translator cannot - must not - attempt to make the text more "readable." To attempt to do so may likely introduce something into the target text that was not in the original.
Hmmm. I do have a tendency to ramble on, don't I. Sorry if this is more of a reply than you asked for, but it just kinda came out.
Cheers...
