Recently, no small number of individuals have been attacking the idea of literal translation. They don’t claim that literal translations are actually incomprehensible; instead, they say that the translations are merely difficult to get through. Even if we grant that literal translations are more difficult to get through than other types of translation, they certainly aren’t impossible to understand. There’s a word for translations that are actually incomprehensible and it’s not literal translation; it’s dead translation.
Roughly speaking, literal translation is writing that doesn’t recklessly differ from the original. More specifically, it means translation that attempts to maintain the tone and style of the original. Aside from the negative admonition against reckless adaptation, the positive implication of that first definition above is that care must be taken with regards to sentences as a whole. Words in Western languages can differ greatly between actual usage and their dictionary definitions. The meaning of a word can change based on conditions, while a dictionary would merely note its basic meaning. Dictionaries are incapable of noting all these conditions-based changes. Because of this, appropriate translations must be made based on the meaning of a word in its context. Inserting a dictionary definition in your translation instead, is simply dead translating. While a word chosen this way won’t recklessly differ from a dictionary definition, it will not match the source text. Even if we stop looking at the question of a translated word matching the source text, dead translations still aren’t very good. With dead translation the words still find themselves lacking proper arrangement. And it is this kind of translation that is truly incomprehensible. For less discerning readers, these dead translations are perceived to be failed literal translations. That criticism, however, is wholly without merit. The basis of literal translation is solid. It is translators, originally seeking to produce literal translations, but ultimately failing, and producing dead translations, who are to blame for this common occurrence. The only other explanation is that some imagine literal translation to be some trivial task and don’t take their work very seriously, producing the kind of work that leaves readers scratching their heads. There are no positive steps to be taken at this point to solve the problem; the best we can do is call for translators to stop taking the task of literal translation so lightly.
“直譯”與“死譯”
茅盾 -《小說月報》第13卷第8期
1922年8月
死譯 could have just as easily been 笨譯 or 蠢譯. I think “dumb” translation is maybe a better term in English in any of the cases. “book” translation would be good if it didn’t imply the translation of actual books. Maybe “rule” translation.
