Methodology in Translation Criticism

Abstract

An absence of criteria for criticizing translations existed until the developments in linguistics in the last decade. There has always been controversy as to whether translating should be a literary or a linguistic task. It has become obvious to most that the comparison of one lang to another is properly within the realm of linguistic research. With the use of comparative stylistics, statements on languages expressing the same message can provide knowledge of differences between the mental processes & cultures behind the formation of those langs. But since the majority of translations are of literary material, the criticism has been confined mainly to the literary aspects of the translation &, as such, has been supported more with subjective opinion than verifiable empirical evidence. Some critics have pointed out the mistranslations in the works of translators. It is linguistic investigation which can bring a comprehensive system to translation criticism. A critic must determine if a translation has been faithful to all language elements--meaning, sense, context, tone, & idiom. The critic should propose a possible reason for any mistranslation. Also, the critic should provide us with his opinion (with evidence) of whether the translation was loose or literal. Finally, a comparison between the two grammars would provide clues to the translation's faithfulness to the original text. A display of his techniques in a short criticism of Beckett's translation of En attendant Godot is given at the end of the article. J. Atkinson